illVD-JO-^' 


nvj-jo"^        <rj]3owsoi^ 


5 


"^c^AHvaaiH^'^ 


■^/smiNiiawv^ 


o 


-^XiiJONYSOV^        %a3AINn-3W'^^ 


5 


^OFCAUFn% 


'"^ommsp^ 


miniA 


%_      ^^^^^u^ 


%a3AiNni\v^ 


.^lOSANCELfj-^ 


.j/\lNlT3WV 


.■^      -  .      r       id 


5n^ 


01    i       ^ 


>- 

<c 

CO 


'^^i/OJIlVjjO^       '^'■^' >  ^  "^'"Ijo'f^ 


.# 


lALlfOJ94' 


^^ 


c 


•?/: 


^OFCAlfF 


:>; 


v«an-^^^' 


%ojnvj-jo-^ 


;OF-CALIFO%, 


"^^ 


<ri)30KVS01^''         "^/SaBAIN'd-^HV 


~  C3 


'<i;yij'jNy 


^  n  y._ 


^/^d^Alr 


^^t-LIBRARY(9^ 

iJUlTf 


•'^<!/Odli 
^^OFCAIIFO/?^ 


'•^IVER%        ^lOSANCElfj> 


i^-rs  f 


%1: 


:^.      ^^    ^::^-^^ 


-.^HIBSAK- 


^UIBRARYOr 


^OrlllV 


,H;OFCALlFO% 


I'^iiM??! 


/<'; 


^\\^EUNIVER% 


\\^E  UNIVERS//- 


<^ 


^^^  i^^ 


DIFFICULTIES 


MEXICO  AND  GUATEMALA 


PROPOSED  MEDIATION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


SOME   OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS. 


NEW     YORK 

1  ««2. 


DIFFICULTIES 


BETWEEN 


MEXICO  AND  GUATEMALA. 


PROPOSED  MEDIATION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


SOME   OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTS. 


NEW     YORK 

1882. 


DOCUMENT  No.  I. 


Mr.  Blaine  to  Mr.  Morgan. 
G.  No.  138. 

Department  of  Stats,  Washington,  June  16^  1881. 

Philip  H,  Morgan,  EsqvAre.,  etc.,  etc.,  etc. 

Sir  :  In  my  instructions  of  the  1st  instant  and  to- 
day, I  have  so  clearly  amplified  the  spirit  of  good-will 
which  animates  this  government  toward  that  of  Mexi- 
co, that  I  am  sure  no  room  for  doubt  can  remain  as 
to  the  sincerity  of  our  friendship.  Believing  that  this 
friendship  and  the  frankness  which  has  always  dis- 
tinguished the  policy  of  this  country  toward  its 
neighbors  warrant  the  tender  of  amicable  counsel 
when  occasion  therefor  shall  appear,  and  deeming 
such  counsel  due  to  our  recognized  impartiality,  and 
to  the  position  of  the  United  States  as  the  founder 
and,  in  some  sense,  the  guarantor  and  guardian  of  re- 
publican principles  on  the  American  continent,  it 
seems  proper  now  to  instruct  you  touching  a  point 
upon  which  we  feel  some  natural  concern.  I  refer  to 
the  question  of  boundaries  and  territorial  jurisdiction 
pending  between  Mexico  and  Guatemala. 

In  the  time  of  the  Empire  the  forces  of  Iturbide 
overran  a  large  part  of  the  territory  of  what  now 
constitutes  Central  America,  which  had  then  recently 


210701 


thrown  off  the  Spanish  domination.  The  changing 
fortunes  of  war  resulted  in  the  withdrawal  of  Mexican 
forces  from  most  of  that  region,  except  the  important 
provinces  of  Soconusco  and  Chiapas,  which  remained- 
under  their  control.  Since  that  time  the  boundaries 
between  the  two  countries  have  never  been  adjusted 
upon  a  satisfactory  basis.  Mexico,  become  a  republic, 
did  not  forego  claims  based  on  the  imperial  policy  of 
conquest  and  absorption,  while  Guatemala,  resisting 
jurther  progress  of  Mexican  arras,  and  disputing  step 
by  step  the  conquest  already  made,  has  never  been 
able  to  come  to  a  decision  with  her  more  powerful 
neighbor  concerning  the  relative  extension  of  their 
furisdiction  in  the  disputed  strip  of  territory  lying 
between  the  Gulf  of  Tehuantepec  and  the  peninsula 
of  Yucatan. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  Government  of 
Guatemala  has  made  a  formal  application  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States  to  lend  his  good  offices 
toward  the  restoration  of  a  better  state  of  feeling  be 
tween  the  two  republics.  This  application  is  made  in 
frank  and  conciliatory  terms,  as  to  the  natural  protec- 
tor of  the  rights  and  national  integrity  of  the  repub- 
lican forms  of  government  existing  so  near  our  shores, 
and  to  which  we  are  bound  by  so  many  ties  of  history 
and  of  material  interest. 

This  government  can  do  no  less  than  give  friendly 
and  considerate  heed  to  the  representations  of  Guate- 
mala, even  as  it  would  be  glad  to  do  were  the  appeal 
made  by  Mexico  in  the  interest  of  justice  and  a  better 
understanding. 

The  events,  fresh  in  the  memory  of  the  living 
generation  of  Mexicans,  when  the  moral  and  material 
support  of  the  United  States,  although  then  engaged 


in  a  desperate  domestic  struggle,  was  freely  lent  to 
avert  the  danger  with  wliicli  a  foreign  empire  threat- 
ened the  national  life  of  the  Mexican  Republic,  afford 
a  gratifying  proof  of  the  purity  of  motives  and  be- 
nevolence of  disposition  with  which  the  United  States 
regard  all  that  concerns  tLe  welfare  and  existence  of 
its  sister  republics  of  the  continent. 

It  is  alleged,  on  behalf  of  Guatemala,  that  diplo- 
matic efforts  to  come  to  a  better  understanding  with 
Mexico  have  proved  unavailing ;  that  under  a  partial 
and  preliminary  accord,  looking  to  the  ascertainment 
of  the  limits  in  dispute,  the  Guatemalan  surveying 
parties  sent  out  to  study  the  land,  with  a  view  to  pro- 
posing a  basis  of  definitive  settlement,  have  been  im- 
prisoned by  the  Mexican  authorities ;  that  Guatemalan 
agents  for  the  taking  of  a  census  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  territory  in  question  have  been  dealt  with  in  like 
summary  manner ;  and,  in  fine,  that  the  Government 
of  Mexico  has,  slowly  but  steadily,  encroached  upon 
the  bordering  country  heretofore  held  by  Guatemala, 
substituting  the  local  authorities  of  Mexico  for  those 
already  in  possession,  and  so  widening  the  area  in 
contention. 

It  is  not  the  present  province  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  to  express  an  opinion  as  to  the 
extent  of  either  the  Guatemalan  or  the  Mexican  claim 
to  this  reo;ion. 

It  is  not  a  self-constituted  arbitrator  of  the  desti- 
nies of  either  country,  or  of  both,  in  this  matter. 

It  is  simply  the  impartial  friend  of  both,  ready  to 
tender  frank  and  earnest  counsel  touching  anything 
which  may  menace  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  its 
neighbors.  It  is,  above  all,  anxious  to  do  any  and 
everything  which  will    tend    to   make  stronger  the 


natural  union  of  the  republics  of  the  continent  in  the 
face  of  the  tendencies  of  other  and  distant  forms  of 
government  to  influenca  the  internal  affairs  of  Spanish 
America. 

It  is  especially  anxious,  in  the  pursuance  of  this 
great  policy,  to  see  the  Central  American  Republics 
more  securely  united  than  they  have  been  in  the  past, 
in  protection  of  their  common  interests,  w^hich  inter- 
ests are,  in  their  outward  relations,  identical  in  prin- 
ciple with  those  of  Mexico  and  of  the  United  States. 
It  feels  that  everything  which  may  lessen  the  good 
will  and  harmony  so  much  to  be  desired  between  the 
Spanish  Republics  of  the  Isthmus  must  in  the  end 
disastrously  affect  their  mutual  well-being. 

The  responsibility  for  the  maintenance  of  this 
common  attitude  of  united  strength  is,  in  the  Presi- 
dent's conception,  shared  by  all,  and  rests  no  less  upon 
the  strong  States  than  upon  the  weak. 

Without,  therefore,  in  any  way,  prejudging  the 
contention  between  Mexico  and  Guatemala,  but 
acting  as  the  unbiased  counselor  of  both,  the  Presi- 
dent deems  it  is  his  duty  to  set  before  the  Government 
of  Mexico  his  conviction  of  the  danger  which  would 
ensue  to  the  principles  which  Mexico  has  so  signally 
and  successfully  defended  in  the  past  should  disre- 
spect be  shown  to  the  boundaries  which  separate  her 
from  her  weaker  neighbors,  or  should  the  authority  of 
force  be  resorted  to  in  the  establishment  of  rights  over 
territory  which  they  claim,  without  the  conceded  jus- 
tification of  her  just  title  thereto.  And  especially 
would  the  President  regard  as  an  unfriendly  act 
toward  the  cherished  plan  of  uj^building  strong  re- 
publican governments  in  Spanish  America,  if  Mexico^ 
whose  power  and  generosity  should  be  alike  signal  in 


such  a  case,  shall  seek  or  permit  any  misunderstanding 
with  Guatemala  when  the  path  toward  a  pacific  avoid- 
ance of  trouble  is  at  once  so  easy  and  so  imperative 
an  international  duty. 

You  are  directed  to  seek  an  interview  with  Senor 
Mariscal,  in  which  to  possess  him  with  the  purport  of 
this  instruction.  In  doing  so,  your  judgment  and  dis- 
cretion may  have  full  scope  to  avoid  any  misunder- 
standing on  his  part  of  the  spirit  of  friendly  counsel 
which  prompts  the  President's  course.  Should  Senor 
Mariscal  evince  a  disposition  to  become  more  inti- 
mately acquainted  with  the  President's  views  after 
your  verbal  exposition  thereof,  you  are  at  liberty  to 
read  this  dispatch  to  him,  and,  should  he  so  desire,  to 
give  him  a  copy. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  JAMES  G.  BLAINE. 


DOCUMENT  No.   II. 


Conference  between  Mr.  P.  ff.  Morgan  and  S9\  Don 
Ignacio  Mariscal. 

MEMOEANDUM. 

(Translation.)^ 

On  tlie  9tli  instant,  the  Honorable  Minister  of  the 
United  States,  after  requesting  a  special  interview 
with  the  undersigned  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  in 
order  to  discuss  an  important  subject,  visited  the  For- 
eign Office,  and  began  the  interview  by  giving  the 
undersigned  full  assurances  of  the  friendly  spirit  cher- 
ished by  his  government  respecting  Mexico,  alluding, 
among  other  matters,  to  the  note  of  the  Honorable 
Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Blaine,  of  which  he  had  a  few 
days  before  given  a  copy  to  the  undersigned,  and  in 
which  a  similar  friendly  spirit  was  manifest.  He 
added  that,  in  the  subject  which  he  was  about  to  in- 
troduce, his  government  by  no  means  pretended  to 
intrude  in  an  officious  manner,  nor  had  it  any  other 
interest  than  a  desire  for  the  peace  and  harmony 
which  should  prevail  between  neighboring  and  sister 
nations,  for  the  credit  and  the  advancement  of  the  re- 
publican institutions  they  had  both  adopted — institu- 
tions of  which  the  consolidation  in  this  New  World 


could  not  but  interest  the  United  States  as  being  their 
originators  upon  this  continent ;  that  they  did  not  on 
that  account  assume  to  meddle  in  the  internal  govern- 
ment or  in  the  mutual  relations  of  the  other  American 
republics,  whose  prosperity  they  sincerely  desired, 
without  pretending  to  stimulate  it  by  any  other  means 
than  by  their  own  example,  or,  when  circumstances 
may  seem  to  require  it,  by  giving  friendly  counsel 
which  it  was  hoped  would  be  considered  as  disinter- 
ested as  it  really  is,  and  not  as  having  emanated  from 
any  selfish  or  interested  motive. 

When  Mr.  Morgan  observed  that  the  undersigned 
manifested  his  full  conviction  of  the  friendly  senti- 
ments which  he  had  expressed  in  the  name  of  his 
government,  he  added  these  words :  "  All  that  I  have 
said  to  you  will  be  found  better  expressed,  in  relation 
to  the  subject  now  to  be  presented,  in  the  note  which 
I  will  proceed  to  read  by  order  of  my  government." 
He  then  read  the  note  addressed  to  him  by  the  Hon. 
Mr.  Blaine,  under  date  of  the  16th  of  June  last,  in- 
forming him  that  the  Government  of  Guatemala  had 
formally  applied  to  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
soliciting  his  good  offices  in  order  to  re-establish  be- 
tween the  two  republics  the  sentiments  of  friendship, 
which  it  was  alleged  had  been  interrupted  in  conse- 
quence of  the  question  of  boundary  pending  between 
them. 

Having  finished  the  reading  of  this  note,  Mr,  Mor- 
gan, after  offering  a  copy  thereof  to  the  undersigned, 
who  expressed  a  desire  to  possess  it,  added  that,  if  the 
Government  of  Mexico  accepted  the  decision  of  the 
boundary  question  with  Guatemala  by  means  of  arbi- 
tration, he  thought  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  would   consent  to  become  the  arbitrator,  and 


10 

that  the  decision  it  might  pronounce  in  such  case 
would  certainly  be  impartial  and  just,  since  it  had  no 
other  interest  than  to  re-establish  harmony  and  good 
understanding  between  Mexico  and  her  southern  neigh- 
bor. Entering  upon  various  considerations  concerning 
the  evils  of  ^var,  Mr.  Morgan  observed  that,  even  if 
Mexico  slionld  be  victorious  in  a  war  with  Guatemala, 
as  she  could  not  fail  to  be,  in  view  of  the  great  superi- 
ority of  her  element*,  she  would  nevertheless  suffer 
grave  injuries,  and  perchance  experience  a  paralysis  of 
the  movement  of  internal  improvements  lately  begun, 
besides  aifording  the  evil  example  of  deciding,  by  foi'ce 
of  arms,  the  discussions  between  two  sister  re2:)ublics. 

The  undersigned  replied  that  he  was  satisfied  that 
the  sentiment  which  guided  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  in  the  step  then  taken  was  friendly  and 
loyal,  but  at  once  observed  that  it  had  not  been  cor- 
rectly informed  by  the  Government  of  Guatemala.  He 
further  said  that  he  would  waive,  for  the  time  being, 
the  consideration  of  various  inaccuracies,  both  upon 
matters  of  history  and  upon  recent  events,  contained 
in  the  note  of  the  Honorable  Secretary  of  State,  which 
were  doubtless  due  to  one-sided  allegations  on  the  part 
of  the  Government  of  Guatemala,  and  to  the  fact  that, 
in  general,  the  history  of  Mexico  is  not  well  known, 
reserving  the  privilege  of  preparing,  within  a  few  days, 
a  memorandum  in  which,  besides  stating  what  had 
passed  in  the  said  interview,  he  would  r.ctify  the  in- 
accuracies above  mentioned,  and  could  take  more  fully 
into  consideration  some  of  the  ideas  expressed  by  the 
Honorable  Secretary  of  State. 

He  would  consequently  limit  himself  at  that  time 
to  the  statement  that  force  or  conquest  had  never  been 
the  basis  of  the  rights  alleged  by  Mexico  to  a  certain 


11 

portion  of  her  territory  claimed  by  Guatemaln,  as  upon 
a  future  occasion  lie  would  demonstrate.  The  com- 
plaints of  the  Guatemalans,  he  added,  are  not  sincere, 
and  the  government  of  General  Barrios  knew  very 
well  how  different  are  the  facts  of  the  case  from  the 
stateineuts  made  to  the  government  at  Washington. 
Even  before  consulting  the  President,  he  could  assure 
Mr.  Morgan  that  the  good  ojQSces  of  his  government 
were  received  with  high  esteem  by  the  Government 
of  Mexico.  There  is  as  yet,  he  added,  no  motive  what- 
ever for  the  fear  that  tbe  latter  will  appeal  to  force  to 
resolve  the  boundary  question  with  Guatemala,  which 
for  many  years  has  been  under  pacific  and  patient  dis- 
cussion, the  Mexican  Government  having  always  been 
the  promoter  of  the  discussion,  and  of  its  solution  by 
friendly  measures. 

The  recent  events  of  which  the  Guatemalan  Govern- 
ment complained  had  been  the  subject  of  discussions 
in  which  the  arguments  of  Mexico  had  not  been  an- 
swered, the  last  notes  of  the  Mexican  Government 
having  usually  been  left  without  reply.  The  tactics 
of  the  Government  of  Guatemala  had  consisted  in  ap- 
pealing, for  lack  of  reasons,  to  delays  and  evasions. 
The  present  state  of  the  question  is,  that  the  survey 
of  the  frontier  by  commissions  of  engineers  appointed 
by  the  two  governments  is  still  pending.  The  ap- 
pointment of  these  commissions  was  made  by  virtue 
of  a  convention  promoted  by  Mexico,  in  which  was 
stipulated  the  suspension  of  negotiati(ms  upon  bound- 
aries until  the  said  frontier  could  be  surveyed,  and 
certain  points  which  formed  the  iiasis  of  discussion 
could  be  astronomically  determined. 

The  period  fixed  by  the  convention  expired  defini- 
tively before  the  scientific  commissions  had  concluded 


12 

their  labors,  and  Mexico,  which  has  always  wished  to 
attain  a  truthful  and  conscientious  decision,  is  laboring 
for  the  renewal  of  the  said  convention,  in  order  to  con. 
tinue  the  boundary  survey,  without  which  it  would 
seem  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  rationally  continu- 
ing the  discussion,  or  of  arriving  at  an  agreement,  or 
of  an  intelligent  decision  of  the  questions  at  issue,  by 
a  thii'd  party. 

This  will  prove  to  Mr.  Morgan  two  things :  first, 
that  the  Mexican  Government  positively  desires  to 
bring  the  question  of  boundary  to  a  just  and  pacific 
conclusion,  and  second,  that  it  is  not  possible  at  p:  es- 
ent  even  to  say  whether  this  question,  at  least  in  part, 
may  become  a  proper  one  for  an  arbitration. 

As  to  the  other  part,  i,  e.,  the  perfect  title  of  Mexi- 
co to  the  state  of  Chiapas,  including  the  department 
or  district  of  Soconusco,  of  which  it  has  been  in  pos- 
session for  so  many  years,  the  Mexican  Government 
has  several  times  declared  that  it  does  not  and  can  not 
decorously  admit  any  question.  What  it  has  consent- 
ed to  discuss  among  the  claims  of  Guatemala,  and  for 
which  it  has  been  surveying  and  mapping  out  the 
frontier,  is  the  matter  of  the  boundaries  of  Chiapas 
and  Soconusco,  on  the  Guatemala  side.  But  it  may 
readily  be  seen  that  this  can  not  yet  give  occasion  to 
an  arbitration,  since  the  data  have  not  yet  been  ob- 
tained which  have  been  thought  indispensable  for  the 
decision  of  the  points  at  issue. 

Mexico  is  very  far  from  absolutely  refusing  arbitra- 
tion, but  does  not  think  it  possible  at  present,  for  the 
reasons  just  mentioned,  and  reserves  her  decision  as  to 
accepting  it  in  the  future,  concerning  certain  points  on 
which  it  might  be  useful.  If  it  were  not  for  these 
reasons,  she  would  be  glad  to  take  into  consideration, 


13 

even  before  a  formal  proposition  (which  has  not  yet 
been  made),  the  mediation  of  the  United  States  with 
the  character  of  an  arbitration  in  her  differences  with 
Guatemala,  for  she  would  have  the  greatest  confidence 
in  the  impartiality  and  justice  of  this  mutual  friend  of 
both  Darties. 

i. 

The  interview  was  concluded  by  Mr.  Morgan  prom- 
ising to  send  a  copy  of  the  note  which  he  had  read, 
and  by  the  undersigned  promising  to  prepare  the 
present  memorandum,  which  should  contain,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  foregoing,  certain  observations  suggested 
by  the  contents  of  the  said  note. 

Examining  this  important  dispatch,  of  which  a 
copy  was  sent  to  this  Ministry  the  same  day,  attention 
is  at  once  drawn,  since  it  shows  a  strong  desire  to 
prove  a  just  and  friendly  intention,  to  the  paragraph 
drawn  up  in  the  following  terms :  "  Events  fresh  in 
the  memory  of  the  present  generation  of  Mexicans, 
which  occurred  at  a  time  when  the  moral  and  material 
support  of  the  United  States,  although  engaged  in  a 
tremendous  civil  war,  was  amply  afforded  in  order  to 
avoid  the  danger  with  which  a  foreign  empire  men- 
aced the  life  of  the  Mexican  Republic,  offer  a  satisfac- 
tory proof  of  the  purity  of  motives  and  of  the  friendly 
disposition  with  which  the  United  States  regarded  all 
that  relates  to  the  prosperity  and  the  subsistence  of 
the  sister  republics  on  this  continent." 

In  fact,  Mexico  can  never  forget  what  was  wit- 
nessed by  the  present  generation  of  Mexicans  as  re- 
ferred to  by  the  Hon.  Mr.  Blaine,  i.  e.,  that  the  United 
States  lent  their  generous  moral  support,  when,  being 
invaded  by  a  foreign  army,  her  people  struggled  alone 
and  without  resources  from  abroad  against  a  Euro- 
pean monarch  and  his  instrument  in  this  country,  who 


14 

was  supported  by  certain  misguided  elements  at  home. 
Nor  will  she  forget  that  the  sentiment  of  the  Ameri- 
can people  during  that  crisis  clearly  showed  that,  if 
the  United  States  had  not  been  engaged  in  a  civil 
war  of  vast  proportions,  the  support  giv^en  to  Mexico 
would  have  been  more  than  moral,  and  would  have 
sufficed  to  terminate  the  struggle  some  years  earlier. 

In  the  same  note  it  is  stated  that  the  forces  of  the 
Emperor  Iturbide  having  occupied  a  large  portion  of 
the  territory  of  Central  America,  the  fortune  of  war 
forced  them  to  abandon  all  that  territory  except  Soco- 
nusco  and  Chiapas,  and  that  Mexico,  after  becoming  a 
republic,  did  not  desist  from  reclamations  founded 
upon  the  imperial  policy  of  absorption  and  conquest. 
In  this  there  are  some  historical  errors,  and  especially 
one  which  is  due,  as  already  stated,  to  one-sided  alle- 
gations or  to  the  fact  that,  unfortunately,  the  history 
of  Mexico  is  not  well  known.  Even  during  the  em- 
pire of  Iturbide  it  was  not  conquest  but  the  free-will 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Chiapas  and  Soconusco  which 
determined  their  annexation  to  Mexico,  as  well  as  that 
of  all  the  provinces  of  Central  America  except  Salva- 
dor. In  the  use  of  the  same  liberty,  they  afterward 
separated  from  this  country  and  formed  with  Guate- 
mala a  republic ;  always  excepting  Chiapas  and  So- 
conusco, which,  after  Mexico  became  a  republic,  re 
newed  their  determination  to  remain  incorporated 
therewith. 

As  it  is  not  possible  here  to  recount  the  history  of 
what  occurred,  it  will  suffice  to  mention  that,  on  ac- 
count of  the  ever-renewed  claims  of  Guatemala,  there 
have  been  published  very  serious  and  carefully  studied 
treatises  with  the  object  of  proving  the  right  which 
Mexico  originally  acquired  to  this  portion  of  her  pres- 


15 

ent  territory,  basing  it,  not  upon  conquest,  but  upon 
the  will  of  the  inhabitants,  the  proofs  of  wliich  may 
be  found  in  unquestionable  documents  wliich  have 
been  published.  Among  these  publications  are  those 
respectively  made  by  Don  Manuel  Larrainzar  and  Don 
Matias  Romero,  persons  well  acquainted  with  the  facts 
concerning  Chiapas  and  Soconusco,  since  the  former  is 
a  native  of  that  state  and  the  latter  has  resided  in 
Soconusco,  w^here  he  had  to  abandon  his  property, 
which  was  devastated  by  Guatemalan  invaders.  But, 
without  alluding  to  the  contents  of  the  said  publica- 
tions, it  will  be  understood  how  inaccurate  are  the 
attacks  made  upon  the  right  of  Mexico  to  these  re- 
gions which  form  a  state  of  the  Union,  by  simply  ex- 
amining the  long  and  weighty  note  which  Seiior  La- 
fragua,  as  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  addressed  to  the 
Minister  of  Guatemala  in  this  capital,  under  date  of 
October  9,  1875,  adjoining  to  it  several  documents  of 
a  conclusive  tenor. 

This  note,  which  has  been  circulated  in  a  printed 
form,  and  in  which  the  ori2;inal  rig^hts  of  Mexico  to 
Soconusco  and  Chiapas,  now  placed  beyond  doubt  by 
a  possession  of  more  than  thirty  and  fifty  years  re- 
spectively, are  victoriously  illustrated  and  proved  ; 
this  note,  which  should  have  given  rise  to  a  serious 
discussion,  has  remained  up  to  the  present  time  un- 
answered, as  the  Government  of  Guatemala  habitually 
leaves  those  wliich  it  can  not  answer. 

The  brief  summary  of  that  extended  note  will 
show  by  itself  that  the  titles  of  Mexico  have  not  con- 
sisted of  absorption  and  conquest,  as  the  Hon.  Mr. 
Blaine  has  been  led  to  believe  by  means  of  calumnies 
against  this  republic.  The  closing  words  of  that  doc- 
ument are  as  follows :  "  Summing  up  the   argument 


16 

of  the  present  note,  the  following  points  have  been 
demonstrated:  First.  Chiapas  was  a  province  similar 
to  the  others  which  formed  the  captaincy-general  of 
Guatemala.  Second.  Chiapas,  on  the  3d  day  of  Sep- 
tember, 1821,  freely  separated  from  Guatemala  and 
united  with  Mexico.  Third.  Chiapas,  on  the  12th  day 
of  September,  1824,  again  joined  the  United  States  of 
Mexico  by  the  free  choice  of  a  majority  of  her  inhabit- 
ants (it  having  been  previously  shown  that  the  voting 
took  place  without  the  presence  of  Mexican  forces  in 
any  part  of  the  State,  and  that  there  was  a  large  ma- 
jority in  favor  of  Mexico).  Fourth.  Soconusco,  in 
1821,  was  2i  jpartido  of  the  Intendency  of  Chiapas,  and 
as  such  united  with  the  Mexican  Empire.  Fifth.  So- 
conusco, in  1821,  voted  freely  in  favor  of  union  with 
Mexico  on  the  3d  day  of  May.  Sixth.  The  Act  drawn 
up  at  Tapachula  on  the  24th  day  of  July,  1824,  was  a 
revolutionary  and  illegal  procedure.  Seventh.  Central 
America  recognized  the  Suj^reme  Junta  of  Chiapas, 
and  agreed  to  respect  its  decision,"  etc.  Without 
copying  the  entire  summary,  the  preceding  will  con- 
vince the  reader  that  the  Mexican  Government  has 
never  based  its  original  rights  to  Chiapas  and  Soco- 
nusco upon  conquest. 

As  to  recent  events,  the  points  of  complaint  against 
Mexico  presented  by  the  Government  of  Guatemala  to 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  are  four  in  num- 
ber : 

First.  That  the  diplomatic  efforts  made  to  reach  a 
settlement  with  Mexico  have  been  fruitless. 

Second.  That  there  exists  a  preliminary  and  partial 
agreement  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  are  the 
ti'ue  limits ;  and  that  the  Guatemalan  commissions  of 
exploration  sent  to  survey  the  region  in  order  to  pre- 


17 

pare  the  basis  for  a  definitive  settlement  were  impris- 
oned by  tlie  Mexican  authorities. 

Third.  That  the  agents  of  Guatemala  charged  to 
take  a  census  of  the  territory  in  question  were  treated 
in  the  same  manner. 

Fourth.  That  the  Mexican  Government  has  cau- 
tiously but  constantly  invaded  the  frontier  district 
which  had  heretofore  been  in  the  possession  of  Guate- 
mala, replacing  the  local  authorities  which  were  there 
existing  by  those  of  Mexico,  thus  augmenting  the  area 
of  the  disputed  territory. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  reply  to  these  points  in 
the  same  order. 

I.  Diplomatic  efforts  for  the  settlement  of  limits 
with  Guatemala  have  always  and  exclusively  been 
initiated  by  Mexico.  In  1832  the  Mexican  Govern- 
ment sent  Don  Manuel  Diez  de  Bonilla  as  Envoy  and 
Minister  Plenipotentiary,  and  in  1853  Don  Juan  N. 
de  Pereda  with  the  same  character,  without  obtaining 
any  result.  Senor  Pereda  remained  in  Guatemala  un- 
til the  year  1858.  In  the  various  interviews  which  he 
had  with  Don  Manuel  Pavon,  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  of  that  republic,  that  gentleman  constantly 
refused  to  celebrate  a  treaty  of  limits,  and  said  that 
Guatemala  proposed,  in  the  pending  negotiations  with 
Mexico,  to  simply  recognize  the  statu  quo  of  the  fron- 
tier between  the  two  countries  without  any  alteration. 

Sefior  Pereda  had  to  suspend  his  official  relations 
with  the  Government  of  Guatemala  on  account  of  the 
refusal  of  the  latter  to  treat  concerning  limits,  and 
because  the  s:iid  government,  in  a  discourteous  and 
offensive  manner,  refused  to  grant  the  internment  of 
several  emigrados  from  Mexico,  who  were  conspiring 
against  the  peace  of  this  republic. 
2 


18 

The  question  of  limits  was  not  again  discussed 
until  October,  1873,  when  Senor  Lafragua,  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  addressed  a  note  to  Senor  Garcia 
Granados,  Charge  d' Affaires  of  Guatemala,  indicating 
the  necessity  that  the  question  should  be  concluded. 
For  that  purpose  he  invited  the  Government  of  Gua- 
temala to  appoint  a  plenipotentiary  to  open  the  nego- 
tiations in  this  capital. 

Senor  Uriarte,  the  new  Minister  of  Guatemala, 
replied  after  some  months,  in  July,  1874,  after  Senor 
Lafragua  had  asked  him  by  note  whether  the  said  in- 
vitation was  accepted,  that  he  was  provided  with  a 
full  power  to  enter  upon  negotiations. 

On  the  21st  of  August,  Senor  Uriarte  presented  a 
memorandum  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  discussion.  After 
various  conferences,  Senor  Lafragua  replied  to  the 
memorandum,  by  a  note  dated  October  9,  1875,  with 
which  he  inclosed  a  draft  of  a  treaty  of  limits  between 
the  two  republics. 

This  important  note,  already  alluded  to,  has  re- 
mained without  reply,  as  has  also  been  previously 
remarked. 

In  July,  1877,  ne2:otiatior,s  were  resumed  between 
Senor  Vallarta,  as  Plenipotentiary  of  Mexico,  and 
Senor  Uriarte,  Minister  of  Guatemala.  The  result 
was  the  convention  of  December  7th  of  that  year. 

II.  The  note  of  Mi\  Blaine  alludes  to  this  conven- 
tion. By  it,  as  already  indicated,  there  was  created  a 
mixed  commission  of  Mexican  and  Guatemalan  engi- 
neers, charged  with  making  a  survey,  forming  plans, 
and  fixing  astronomically  certain  points  in  order  to 
advance  the  knowledge  of  the  question  at  issue,  and 
afterward  continue  the  discussion  upon  the  limits  of 
the  two  republics. 


19 

In  Article  X  it  was  stipulated  that,  during  the  sus- 
pension of  negotiations  upon  limits,  the  high  contract- 
ing powers  would  religiously  respect  and  cause  to  be 
respected  the  actual  possession,  not  raising  or  allowing 
to  be  raised  any  question  relative  to  boundary-marks, 
and  preventing  every  act  of  hostility  on  the  part  either 
of  the  authorities  or  citizens  of  the  two  republics. 

The  commissioners  met  at  Tapachula,  November 
18,  1878,  and  began  their  operations. 

On  the  26th  of  January,  1880,  three  engineers  of 
the  Guatemalan  commission  appeared  in  the  vicinity 
of  Cuilco  Viejo,  a  village  of  Soconusco,  accompanied 
by  a  number  of  Indians,  and  placed  there  a  cross. 
The  local  authorities  believed  that  this  act  was  in- 
tended to  advance  the  boundary-post  of  Pinabete,  re- 
cognized as  the  limit  between  the  two  republics  and 
situated  eight  leagues  farther  north,  as  had  been  done 
years  before  by  the  inhabitants  of  Tacand,  a  village 
belonging  to  Guatemala.  Under  this  belief  they  ques- 
tioned the  said  engineers,  and  not  receiving  satisfac- 
tory explanations  of  the  act,  nor  being  shown  any 
document  proving  their  character  as  commissioners, 
the  said  authorities  arrested  them  and  sent  them  to 
Tapachula.  There  they  were  immediately  set  at  lib- 
erty by  the  political  chief,  who  gave  them  the  fullest 
reparations.  This  is  the  only  case  of  imprisonment  of 
engineers  which  Guatemala  can  cite,  and  as  to  this 
incident  that  Government  appeared  to  be  satisfied. 
The  Mexican  Government  then  believed  that  the  local 
authorities  had  acted  erroneously,  but  later  acts  of  the 
Government  of  Guatemala  show  that  it  had  really 
been  intended  to  change  the  landmarks. 

III.  A  motive  similar  to  the  foregoing  occasioned 
the  arrest  of  the  agents  of  Guatemala,  to  which  allu- 


20 

sion  has  been  made.  In  December,  1880,  a  commis- 
sion, composed  of  tbe  alcalde  of  Tacand  and  four 
other  persons,  proceeded  to  register  the  inhabitants  of 
some  ranchei'ias,  which,  although  a  league  distant 
from  the  Mexican  villas-e  of  Cuilco  Vieio,  form  an  in- 
tegral  part  thereof.  They  went — not,  as  allege^!,  to 
take  a  census  in  disputed  territory — but  to  exercise 
acts  of  jurisdiction  in  the  place,  in  order  afterward  to 
adduce  them  as  a  proof  of  possession  by  Guatemala. 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  inhabitants  of  Tacand,  whose 
alcalde  is  the  present  subject  of  discussion,  were  the 
same  who  at  a  former  time  advanced  the  boundary-post 
of  Pinabete,  and  that  the  rancherias  in  question  would 
have  been  on  Guatemalan  territory  if  the  said  land- 
mark had  remained  where  it  was  then  placed,  on 
which  spot  the  cross  was  afterward  raised  by  the 
Guatemalan  engineers.  The  said  commissioners,  who 
thus  violated  the  convention  binding  tliem  to  respect 
the  actual  possession,  were  therefore  justly  arrested^ 
and  turned  over  to  the  District  Judge,  in  order  that 
he  might  act  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  Mexico. 

The  Minister  of  Guatemala  complained  of  this  act, 
alleging  that  those  rancherias  belonged  and  had  always 
belonged  to  his  country.  In  the  reply  made  to  him, 
under  date  of  the  27th  of  January  last,  the  inaccuracy 
of  his  asseitions  was  proved  by  showing  that  those 
ranclierias  were  within  the  provisional  limits  of  Mexi- 
co, and  that  they  belong  to  this  republic,  even  accord- 
ing to  the  official  map  of  Guatemala.  In  refuting  the 
charges  made  by  Seiior  Herrera  in  his  note,  against 
the  Mexican  authorities,  it  was  shown  by  recent  facts 
that  the  abuses  have  been  on  the  part  of  the  Guate- 
malan authorities. 

As  Senor  Herrera  based  the  title  of  his  country  to 


21 

the  said  points  on  the  fact  that  there  were  certain  as- 
sistant alcaldes  appointed  by  the  authority  at  Sibinal, 
a  village  of  Guatemala,  the  undersigned  showed  that 
the  appointment  had  been  first  made  after  the  signa- 
ture of  the  Convention  which  bound  the  two  coun- 
tries to  resj^ect  the  statu  quo  in  regard  to  limits,  and 
that  consequently  it  only  proved  that  Guatemala  had 
violated  her  engagement.  Seiior  Herrera  confined 
himself  to  stating  that  he  would  inform  his  govern- 
ment of  this  note,  and  it  has  thus  far  remained  with- 
out reply. 

IV.  The  accusations  against  Mexico  under  this 
fourth  heading,  i.  e.,  a  general  charge  of  continual  Mexi- 
can invasions  of  Guatemalan  territory,  are  not  only 
entirely  false,  but  inconceivably  audacious.  There  ex- 
ists a  plan  of  Soconusco  made  by  Don  Jose  E.  Ibarra, 
carefully  formed,  as  is  shown  by  the  geographical  and 
statistical  notices  of  that  department  given  in  the  mar- 
gin. On  it  are  marked  in  red  ink  the  ancient  limits, 
and  in  green  those  which  seem  to  be  recognized  in  re- 
cent times.  The  space  between  the  two  lines  marks 
the  advances  made  by  Guatemala,  and  at  the  end  of 
the  marginal  notices  the  dates  are  specified  when  they 
were  effected.  These  invasions  have  been  continued 
recently;  the  archives  of  the  Department  of  Foreign 
Affairs  are  full  of  data  upon  those  which  have  oc- 
curred since  1870. 

Without  being,  perhaps,  among  the  most  notable, 
one  of  these  invasions  was  for  the  purpose  of  destroy- 
ing the  property  of  Don  Matias  Romero,  as  already 
indicated.  Seuor  E-omero,  who  is  well  known  in 
Washington,  where  he  represented  Mexico  for  several 
years,  could  not,  with  all  his  characteristic  modera- 
tion and  prudence,  prevent  Guatemalan  Indians,  by 


22 

order  of  a  prefect  of  that  nation,  from  invading  his 
lands  within  the  Mexican  territory,  destroying  his 
property,  carrying  away  prisoner  one  of  his  employees,, 
and  maltreating  others.  In  November,  1875,  a  com- 
plaint was  presented  to  the  Government  of  Guatemala 
for  this  act,  but  hitherto  no  reply  has  been  made.  On 
the  other  hand,  that  government  has  imputed  to  Senor 
Romero  conflagrations  and  other  crimes  within  the  ter- 
ritory of  Guatemala — charges  entirely  improbable,  and 
which  that  gentleman  has,  moreover,  refuted  at  length. 

In  the  same  month  and  year  the  engineer  Don 
Alejandro  Prieto,  secretary  of  the  Mexican  legation 
in  Guatemala,  made  a  survey  of  the  frontier  by  direc- 
tion of  Senor  Garza,  then  Mexican  minister  to  that 
government.  He  made  the  journey  and  the  survey 
in  company  with  General  Barrios,  President  of  Guate- 
mala, as  was  stated  by  Seiior  Garza  in  a  letter  ad- 
dressed to  Senor  Lafragua,  and  by  the  Government  of 
Chiapas  in  a  dispatch  dated  November  26,  1875. 
From  this  visit  originated  the  sketch-map  drawn  up 
by  Prieto,  which  may  be  found  in  this  ministry,  and 
which,  as  well  from  having  been  prepared  under  the 
inspection  of  President  Barrios  as  for  other  reasons, 
can  not  be  an  object  of  suspicion  to  Guatemala. 
Upon  it  is  marked  the  line  which  is  the  boundary  in 
fact,  and  on  it  are  also  marked  the  points  in  dispute. 
To  this  line,  then,  must  be  referred  the  statu  quo  stip- 
ulated in  the  Convention  of  1877.  Now,  the  very 
notes  of  the  Minister  of  Guatemala  prove  that  his 
Government,  far  from  having  respected  it,  has  violated 
it  at  Tonintan^,  at  Las  Chicharras,  Cuilco  Viejo,  and 
other  points. 

That  Government  has  gone  so  far  as  to  defend  the 
misdeeds  of  the  Alcalde   Meono,  who  attempted  to 


23 

assassinate  a  Mexican  surveyor,  and  burned  ranchos 
within  the  territory  of  Mexico. 

It  has  done  more.  In  December  of  last  year  it 
sent,  or  permitted  to  be  sent,  a  force  under  the  orders 
of  the  prefect  of  San  Mdrcos  (a  department  of  Gua- 
temala), which  invaded  our  territory  and  destroyed 
the  landmark  of  Pinabete,  the  same  w^hicli  was  de- 
molished by  the  residents  of  Tacand,  and  which  was 
reconstructed  shortly  afterward.  The  said  prefect 
then  hoisted  the  flag  of  Guatemala  precisely  upon  the 
cross  so  mysteriously  erected  by  the  Guatemalan  en- 
gineers  near  Cuilco  Viejo. 

Complaint  being  made  at  Guatemala  of  these  acts, 
that  government  refused  to  give  explanations  to  our 
minister,  under  the  pretext  that  the  subject  had  to  be 
treated  in  Mexico,  because  Senor  Loaeza  had  no  in- 
structions to  receive  them.  The  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  Senor  Montiifar,  being  pressed  by  our  repre- 
sentative, who  sent  him  a  copy  of  a  note  from  the 
undersigned  manifesting  surprise  at  such  conduct,  re- 
plied that  the  ground  where  these  events  took  place 
belonged  to  Guatemala,  Avithout  giving  any  reasons 
for  such  alleoiation,  and  overlookino;  the  fact  that  the 
undersigned,  in  his  note  of  the  27th  of  January  last, 
to  which  no  reply  has  been  given,  had  demonstrated 
the  contrary. 

Meanwhile  the  term  of  the  Convention  of  Decem- 
ber 7,  1877,  had  expired  on  December  31,  1879,  with- 
out the  scientific  commissions  having  concluded  their 
labors.  The  Mexican  Government  proposed  to  that  of 
Guatemala  that  the  said  Convention  should  be  renewed 
for  a  term  long  enough  to  attain  the  object  desired, 
and  ordered  its  ensjineers  to  remain  on  the  frontier,  as 
in  fact  they  have  remained,  notwithstanding  that  the 


24 

Guatemalan  engineers  were  withdrawn  by  their  gov- 
ernment without  the  formality  of  advising  that  of 
Mexico.  The  President  of  Guatemala  personally  in- 
formed our  minister  that  he  was  willing  to  renew  the 
Convention,  and  that  instructions  to  that  end  had 
been  sent  to  Seiior  Herrera,  Minister  of  Guatemala  in 
Mexico.  Senor  Herrera,  however,  considered  himself 
for  several  months  without  sufficient  instructions  to 
negotiate,  alleging  that  those  received  were  not  suf- 
ficiently explicit.  It  was  only  recently  (July  11)  that 
Senor  Herrera,  having  come  to  speak  with  the  under- 
signed about  the  friendly  step  taken  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  and  the  observation 
having  been  made  to  him  that  the  Government  of 
Guatemala  had  not  yet  sent  him  the  instructions 
offered,  made  known  that  he  had  received  them  in 
the  desired  form. 

This  conduct  of  his  government,  not  at  all  sincere, 
and  seemingly  incomprehensible,  is  now  explained  by 
the  step  which  the  President  of  Guatemala,  through 
his  representative,  has  taken  toward  the  Government 
of  the  United  States.  President  Barrios  wished,  as 
may  be  inferred  from  the  facts,  to  gain  time  while  he 
applied  to  a  friendly  government  complaining  of  inju- 
ries supposed  to  have  been  committed  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  Mexico,  whose  conduct  he  dej)icted  with  false 
colors  while  soliciting  the  interposition  of  good  offices. 
In  this  application,  he  apparently  omitted,  howevei', 
to  state  that,  at  the  request  of  Mexico,  the  renewal 
of  the  Convention  for  the  survey  of  the  frontier  was 
under  advisement,  a  survey  absolutely  necessary,  as 
declared  by  both  governments,  in  order  to  fix  the 
international  limits,  whether  by  diplomatic  negotia- 
tions or  other  pacific  means. 


25 

The  omissions  and  inexactitudes  of  the  govern- 
ment of  General  Barrios,  in  its  statements  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  its  other 
acts  concerning  the  question  of  limits  with  Mexico, 
show  its  policy  upon  this  subject  to  be  entirely  lack- 
ing in  sincerity  and  frankness. 

The  facts  briefly  noted  in  this  memorandum,  and 
others  which  can  not  here  be  mentioned,  authorize 
the  suspicion  that  the  said  government,  in  addressing 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  has  not  really 
desired,  as  was  pretended,  to  obtain  the  decision  of 
an  arbitrator  upon  the  question  of  limits.  It  is  very 
certain  that  it  can  not  be  ignorant  of  the  impossibility 
for  Mexico  to  admit  any  discussion  of  the  rights  she 
has  to  Chiapas  and  Socouusco,  forming  as  they  have 
done  for  many  years  a  State  of  the  Union,  an  integral 
part  of  the  republic,  and  that  it  also  understands  how 
impossible  it  is  to  fix  the  limits  between  this  State 
and  Guatemala,  before  surveying  the  region  in  dis- 
pute, whoever  may  be  the  arbitrator  charged  to  ren- 
der such  decision. 

The  object,  then,  in  pretending  to  promote  an 
arbitration,  can  not  be  other  than  to  gain  time,  as  on 
former  occasions,  to  continue  the  partial  invasions  and 
enervate  the  action  of  the  Mexican  Government  in  the 
simple  defense  of  the  national  territory. 

The  undersigned,  in  order  to  place  upon  record 
the  facts  of  the  interview  with  the  Honorable  Minis- 
ter Morgan,  and  the  observations  to  which  the  note  of 
the  Hon.  Mr.  Blaine  give  occasion,  has  drawn  up  the 
present  meaiorandum,  which  he  signs  for  due  evi- 
dence thereof. 

(Signed)  IGNACIO   MxVRISCAL. 

Mexico,  July  25,  1881. 


DOCUMENT  No.  III. 


THE   QUESTION    OF   LIMITS   BETWEEN   MEXICO   AND   GUATE- 
MALA. 

Ext/racts  from  a  Pamphlet  containing  the  correspondence  ex- 
changed in  187 li-  between  the  Minister  of  Guatemala  in 
Mexico^  Mr.  Ramon  Uriarte.,  and  the  Mexican  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs.,  Mr.  Jose  Maria  Lafragua. 

(Translation.) 
Legation  of  Guatemala,  Mexico,  August  SI,  1874. 

Sir:  As  was  agreed  in  our  last  conference,  I  do 
myself  the  honor  to  send  Your  Excellency  the  inclosed 
memorandum,  hoping  you  will  be  pleased  to  appoint 
a  day  and  hour  when  I  may  present  myself  at  your 
office  to  continue  the  discussion  of  the  project  of  bases 
for  a  preliminary  convention  upon  the  boundaries 
between  Guatemala  and  Mexico. 

This  occasion  affords  me  the  pleasure  of  renewing 
to  Your  Excellency  the  assurances  of  my  distinguished 
consideration. 

(Signed)  K.  URIARTE. 

To  His  Excellency,  Mr.  Josfi  MARfA  Lafbagua,  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs  oj  the  Mexican  Eepublic. 


27 

Legation  of  Guatemala,  Mexico,  August  21,  187 Jf. 

Memorandum  presented  hy  the  undersigned,  Envoy  Extraor- 
dinary and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Guatemala,  ta 
His  Excellency  Mr.  Jose  Maria  Lafragua,  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  of  the  Mexican  Republic. 

After  examining  with  the  greatest  care  all  the  doc- 
uments found  in  the  archives  of  the  Legation  in  my 
charge  concerning  the  various  questions  pending  be- 
tween Guatemala  and  Mexico,  I  now  fulfill  the  duty  of 
submitting  to  the  enlightened  consideration  of  Your 
Excellency  the  present  memorandum  as  a  basis  for  the 
conferences  begun  on  the  22d  of  last  July. 

I  would  waive  all  mention  of  the  obstacles  hitherto 
encountered  in  bringing  to  a  happy  conclusion  the  treat- 
ies proposed  between  the  two  republics,  and  especial- 
ly that  concerning  territorial  limits,  if  it  were  not  for 
the  fact  that  in  official  documents  Guatemala  has  been 
charged  with  unwillingness  to  conclude  such  treaties. 
This  appears  from  the  Memoir  presented  by  Your  Ex- 
cellency to  the  Congress  of  the  Union  last  year,  and 
more  explicitly  from  the  documents  concerning  meas- 
ures proposed  for  the  development  of  the  agricultural 
wealth  of  Soconusco  presented  by  the  Finance  Depart- 
ment to  the  Congress  of  1871.  In  this  latter  docu- 
ment it  is  stated  that  Mexico  has  always  been  ready 
to  enter  into  friendly  and  equitable  treaties  with  Gua- 
temala, but  that  the  latter  power  has  refused  to  sign 
them  under  the  belief,  or  at  least  the  hope,  of  some 
time  recovering  the  state  of  Chiapas.  This  is  inexact. 
A  rapid  glance  at  the  protocols  of  the  conferences  held 
at  different  periods  between  the  commissioners  of  the 
two  countries  will  demonstrate  that  Guatemala  has 
not  only  been  ever  ready  to  negotiate  treaties  with 
Mexico,  but  that  she  has  carried  her  condescension  as 


28 

far  as  is  possible  for  a  nation  desirous  of  the  closest 
harmony  with  her  neighbors,  without  prejudice  to  her 
own  dignity. 

With  respect  to  the  question  of  limits,  for  example, 
Guatemala  proposed  in  1832  the  arbitration  of  a  fiiend- 
ly  nation,  which  was  declined  by  Mexico.  Some  years 
later,  in  1854,  Guatemala  went  to  the  extreme  of  re- 
nouncing her  indisputable  rights  to  Chiapas  and  So- 
conusco,  without  demanding  any  indemnification,  and, 
if  the  negotiation  was  not  carried  out,  it  was  because 
Mexico  declined  to  recognize  and  pay  the  debt  of 
those  states  to  the  ancient  "  Kingdom  of  Guate- 
mala." 

Nearly  the  same  thing  took  place  respecting  the 
treaties  of  commerce  and  extradition  of  criminals,  two 
of  which  were  successively  negotiated  in  1831  and 
1850,  without  having  been  ratified  by  the  Mexican 
Government. 

Guatemala  has  just  given  the  latest  proof  of  her 
sincere  desire  to  terminate  a  question  which  has  been 
pending  for  half  a  century  between  the  two  countries 
by  sending  the  undersigned  to  this  city.  If  on  the 
part  of  Mexico,  then,  there  exists  the  same  desire,  as 
Your  Excellency  has  been  pleased  to  intimate  to  me, 
nothing  will  be  easier  than  to  draw  closer,  by  means 
of  equitable  conventions,  the  ties  of  friendship  and 
fraternity  which  ought  always  to  bind  together  two 
neighboring  republics  which  have  the  same  origin  and 
identical  interests. 

As  the  first  thing  to  be  done  is  to  agree  u]^on  a 
preliminary  convention  to  fix  the  bases  according  to 
which  should  be  traced  the  dividing  line  from  the 
coasts  of  the  Pacific  to  those  of  the  Northern  Sea,  the 
undersigned  sees  no  objection,  respecting  the  question 


29 

of  Chiapas,  to  take  as  a  starting-point  the  project  dis- 
cussed in  Guatemala  between  Messrs.  Pavon  and  Pe- 
reda  in  1854.  That  is  to  say,  that  Guatemala  will 
recognize  the  incorporation  of  that  State  into  the 
Mexican  territory  on  condition  that  Mexico  will  pro- 
ceed to  settle  the  debt  which  that  province  had  con- 
tracted with  what  was  formerly  the  "  Captaincy-Gen- 
eral of  Guatemala." 

The  case  is  not  the  same  respecting  Soconusco.  I 
waive  for  the  present  the  narration  of  the  acts  by  vir- 
tue of  which  that  former  district  of  Guatemala  now 
forms  a  part  of  the  United  States  of  Mexico.  Force 
does  not  constitute  a  title,  and  if  with  respect  to  Chia- 
pas no  one  can  doubt  the  justice  with  which  Guatemala 
might  demand  its  restitution,  in  regard  to  Soconusco 
it  is  abundantly  evident  that  the  violation  of  the  neu- 
trality in  which  it  had  been  agreed  to  maintain  that 
province  can  never  be  for  Mexico  a  title  of  domain^ 
but  rather  strengthens,  in  the  eyes  of  international  law, 
the  titles  which  Guatemala  has  ever  had  for  consider- 
ing it  an  integral  part  of  her  territory.  But,  as  I  have 
already  said,  it  is  not  my  intention  to  record  the  history 
of  those  unjustifiable  acts,  and  I  will  only  call  Your 
Excellency's  attention  to  the  difficulties  presented  by 
the  tracing  of  any  dividing  line  segregating  Soconusco 
from  the  territory  of  Guatemala. 

The  clearer  the  demarkation  of  frontiers  between 
adjacent  countries,  the  fewer  disputes  will  there  be  be- 
tween frontier  authorities,  and  all  questions  originat- 
ing in  the  lack  of  precision  of  the  dividing  lines  will 
be  completely  obviated.  For  this  reason  it  has  lat- 
terly become  the  custom  among  civilized  nations  to 
adopt,  as  such  boundaries,  degrees  of  longitude  or 
latitude.     Since  this  is  not  possible  in  the  present  case 


30 

^f  tlie  limits  between  Guatemala  and  Mexico,  the  line 
sliould  be  drawn  as  straight  as  possible,  in  view  of  the 
broken  character  of  the  region  through  which  it  must 
pass.  The  Department  of  Soconusco,  on  the  southern 
coast,  forms  an  angle  entering  the  territory  of  Guate- 
mala, of  which  the  base  is  the  river  Ciutalapa,  pro- 
ceeding from  the  Bay  of  Zacapulco  as  far  as  the  towns 
of  Motocinta  and  Mazapan,  and  the  vertex  being 
formed  by  the  mouth  of  the  river  Tilapa,  in  the  Bay 
of  Ocos.  Consequently  the  base  for  the  demarkation 
of  the  line  from  the  Pacific  Ocean  should  be  the  Bay 
of  Zacapulco,  tracing  thence  a  straight  line  to  the  river 
Dolores,  the  recognized  limit  of  the  state  of  Chiapas. 
Guatemala  could  not  accept  the  imperfection  of  a  line 
starting  from  the  Bay  of  Ocos,  going  thence  north  to 
Tajomulco,  then  receding  eastward  along  the  mount- 
ain chain  of  Tajomulco,  and  finally  descending  the 
river  Blanco  to  Mazapan. 

From  the  river  Dolores  to  the  Northern  Sea,  the 
undersigned  proposes  for  basis  for  the  tracing  of  a  line 
the  actual  possession,  with  the  understanding  that  a 
scientific  commission  should  be  appointed  by  agree- 
ment of  both  governments,  in  order  to  make  the  neces- 
sary surveys,  and  mark  the  definitive  limits  between 
Guatemala  and  Mexico  in  accordance  with  the  bases 
above  suggested. 

Respecting  treaties  of  friendship,  commerce,  and 
extradition  and  a  postal  convention,  the  undersigned 
abstains  from  speaking  of  them  in  the  present  memo- 
randum, so  as  to  proceed  with  order,  making  due  sep- 
aration ])etween  the  subjects  which  have  been  in- 
trusted to  him. 

(Signed)  R.  URIARTE. 


31 

Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Mexico,  October  9,  1875. 

Sir  :  By  direction  of  the  President  of  the  Repub- 
lic, I  now  proceed  to  examine  the  note  of  Your  Ex- 
cellency, dated  August  21,  1874,  and  the  accompany- 
ing memorandum,  on  the  contents  of  which  I  have 
made  to  Your  Excellency  some  observations  in  private 
conferences.  .  .  . 

Entering  upon  the  examination  of  the  serious  mat- 
ter in  question,  I  must  immediately  remind  you  that 
on  October  20,  1873,  I  had  the  honor  to  address  to 
Mr.  Manuel  Garcia  Granados,  then  representative  of 
Guatemala,  the  formal  declaration  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  Mexico  does  not  admit  any  discussion  upon 
the  legitimacy  of  the  possession  of  Chiapas  and  Soco- 
nusco  by  the  United  States  of  Mexico.  As  that  note 
was  not  answered,  and  since  Your  Excellency  after- 
ward arrived  here  in  the  high  capacity  of  Envoy  Ex- 
traordinary and  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  the  Govern- 
ment of  Mexico  naturally  believed  that  Guatemala 
desisted  from  the  question  formerly  raised  by  her  as 
to  the  incorporation  of  Chiapas  and  Soconusco,  and 
that  the  mission  of  Your  Excellency  had  for  object  the 
much  desired  settlement  of  boundaries.  But  the  note 
and  memorandum  of  Your  Excellency  reopen  this  dis- 
cussion, and  conclude  by  proposing  to  Mexico  the  loss 
of  almost  the  whole  of  Soconusco,  as  well  as  a  part  of 
Chiapas  and  the  payment  of  the  debt  for  which  that 
state  is  alleged  to  be  responsible. 

It  would  suffice  for  the  Government  of  Mexico  to 
refer  to  the  formal  declaration  contained  in  the  note 
of  October  20,  1873;  but,  .with  the  only  object  of  pre- 
venting that  decision  from  being  deemed  capricious  or 
arbitrary,  I  proceed  to  state  to  Your  Excellency  the 
reasons  which  legalize  the  possession  of  Chiapas  and 


32 

Soconusco,  without  thereby  modifying  the  sentiments 
expressed  in  1873.  The  present  exposition  will  set 
forth  the  sum  of  the  rights  which  Mexico  considers 
beyond  question,  and  which  she  is  resolved  to  sustain 
in  the  just  defense  of  those  important  parts  of  the 
national  territory,  worthy  for  a  thousand  reasons  of 
the  esteem  of  our  citizens  and  of  the  efficacious  pro- 
tection of  the  government.  .  .  . 

It  is  consequently  proved  that  there  were  no  such 
abuses  (as  have  been  alleged  by  Guatemala)  in  the 
incorporation  of  ChiajDr.s  and  Soconusco ;  but  even 
admitting,  without  conceding,  that  there  was  any  irreg- 
ularity, what  does  it  avail  in  view  of  the  solemn  rati- 
fication based  upon  the  acquiescence  of  the  people  of 
Chiapas  and  Soconusco  ?  During  fifty-one  years  the 
former,  and  during  thirty-three  years  the  latter,*  have 
not  made  a  single  protest,  have  not  expressed  a  sin- 
gle complaint,  or  manifested  any  dissatisfaction  on  ac- 
count of  their  union  with  Mexico.  They  have  suffered, 
like  other  Mexicans,  the  evils  of  civil  war  and  of  for- 
eign invasions,  they  have  enjoyed  the  benefits  of  lib- 
erty and  felt  the  tyranny  of  dictatorship,  and,  with 
their  talents  in  council  and  their  blood  in  battles,  have 
contributed  to  the  defense  of  national  interests. 

As  a  State  of  the  Federal  Eepublic,  as  a  Depart- 
ment of  the  Central  Republic,  Chiapas  has  remained, 
during  the  long  period  of  our  checkered  political  life, 
the  same  province  which  spontaneously  united  itself 
to  Mexico  on  the  3d  of  September,  1821.  When,  in 
1847,  the  Federal  Government  was  reduced  to  a  few 
cities,  without  an  army  and  obliged  to  yield  to  the 
terrible  law  of  war,  why  did  Chiapas  not  separate 

*  This  was  written  in  1875.     Xow,  in  1881,  the  possession  by  Mexico 
has  lasted  fifty-seven  years  in  one  case  and  thirty-nine  years  in  the  other 


33 

from  a  nation  so  prostrated  by  misfortune  ?  When,  in 
1865,  the  Federal  Government  was  carried,  by  public 
misfortune,  to  Paso  del  Norte,  why  did  not  Chiapas, 
situated  at  the  other  extremity  of  the  country,  at  a 
distance  of  eight  hundred  leagues,  separate  from  a 
nation  almost  completely  subjugated  by  a  foreign 
power?  These  and  other  periods  afforded  extreme 
facilities  for  Chiapas,  if,  in  her  territory,  there  had 
existed  any  sentiment  hostile  to  Mexico,  to  manifest 
it,  or  to  indicate  any  desire  to  abandon  the  mother- 
country,  which  she  freely  adopted  as  her  own,  and  to 
whose  fortunes,  prosperous  or  adverse,  she  has  re- 
mained united  with  the  most  perfect  liberty.  If  the 
state  of  Chiapas  were  situated  in  the  center  of  the 
republic,  it  might  be  said,  carrying  suspicion  beyond 
the  limits  of  probability,  that  her  hands  were  tied  by 
her  very  position,  since  any  movement  on  her  part 
might  be  suppressed  in  a  single  day.  But,  being  situ- 
ated at  the  extremity  of  the  countiy,  and  separated 
from  the  center  by  three  hundred  leagues  of  really 
difficult  roads,  her  unshaken  fidelity  is  not  the  effect 
of  fear,  but  the  worthy  fruit  of  a  sentiment  as  noble 
as  it  is  spontaneous. 

What  reasons,  said  I  in  the  note  dated  October 
20,  1873,  can  be  alleged  in  presence  of  so  firm  a  will? 
What  title  can  avail  more  than  so  constant  a  fidelity  ? 
What  right  more  solid  than  that  founded  upon  such  a 
loyal  and  zealous  patriotism  ?  In  fact,  a  simple  doubt 
would  be  an  offense,  the  more  cruel  when  more  unde- 
served, and  this  is  one  reason  why  the  Government  of 
Mexico  can  not  admit  any  discussion  upon  the  posses- 
sion of  Chiapas  and  Soconusco.* 

*  There  are  several  reasons  why  Mexico  coiild  not,  even  if  she  w^ould, 
enter  into  any  discussion  upon  the  legitimacy  of  her  long-continued  pos- 
3 


u 

Before  entering  upon  the  examination  of  the  pro- 
ject of  limits,  I  ought  to  reply  to  a  charge  unjustly 
made  against  the  Republic  of  Mexico,  attributing  to 
its  reluctance  the  delays  experienced  in  this  important 
business.  From  1825  until  the  present  day,  Mexico 
has  constantly  proposed  the  immediate  tracing  of  the 
limits.  This  appears  from  the  notes  of  Mr.  Alaman 
and  the  protocols  of  Messrs.  Manuel  Diez  de  Bonilla 
and  Juan  Nepomuceno  de  Pereda,  envoys  of  Mexico  in 
that  republic.  Guatemala,  on  the  contrary,  has  ever 
avoided  the  tracing  of  limits,  desiring  the  maintenance 
of  the  statu  quo,  and  thus  postponing  indefinitely  the 
solution  of  so  important  an  affair. 

These  official  documents  fully  prove  who  has  been 
at  fault  in  this  delay.  Mexico  has  constantly  sought 
for  the  tracing  of  the  limits,  which  she  has  considered 
as  the  only  means  of  closing  the  door  against  claims 
which,  though  perchance  of  slight  importance  at  the 
outset,  are  magnified  by  the  lapse  of  time  into  affairs 
of  great  moment.  Guatemala,  on  the  contrary,  has 
constantly  refused  the  tracing  of  limits,  and  has  always 
labored  for  the  preservation  of  the  statu  quo,  thus 
leaving  open  a  wide  door  for  quarrels  between  private 
individuals,  which  subsequently  become  conflicts  be- 

session  of  Chiapas  and  Soconnsco.  The  most  apparent  is,  that  the 
constitution  of  the  Mexican  Republic  enumerates  Chiapas  (including  So- 
conusco)  among  the  States  of  the  Union.  Consequently  there  is  a  cousti- 
tutional  impediment,  quite  unsurmountable,  for  the  Government  of  Mexico 
to  discuss,  before  an  arbitration  or  otherwise,  the  untimely  question  now 
raised  by  Guatemala.  She  urges  that  the  said  government,  to  gratify  some 
long-cherished  fancies  of  Guatemalan  politicians,  should  submit  to  trample 
upon  the  national  constitution  (and  forget  its  dignity)  by  discussing,  with- 
out any  authority  to  do  so,  a  point  settled  alike  by  that  instrument  and  by 
time,  the  great  legitimator  of  all  possessions  in  the  world,  even  when  their 
title  is  less  clear  than  that  of  Mexico  to  her  present  State  of  Chiapas. 


35 

tween  governments.  Would  the  scandals  of  Bejiical, 
and  so  many  others,  whicli  have  given  occasion  to 
complaints,  and  even  now  demand  the  attention  of  the 
two  countries,  have  taken  place  if  the  dividing  line 
had  been  clearly  fixed  ?  But  all  the  efforts  of  Mexico 
have  been  sterile  in  presence  of  the  zeal  with  which 
Guatemala  has  sustained  her  fancied  right  to  Chiapas 
and  Soconusco.  Hoping  some  day  to  recover  these 
regions,  or  to  obtain  a  pecuniary  compensation  for 
them,  she  has  refused  to  put  an  end  to  an^'uncertainty 
harmful  to  both  nations,  and  proposed  the  negotiation 
of  treaties  of  a  different  character,  which  can  be  of  no 
utility  as  long  as  the  material  possession,  subject  by 
law  to  the  authority  of  each  government,  remains  un- 
defined. It  is  true,  as  Your  Excellency  says,  that  in 
1854  Guatemala  agreed  to  the  incorporation  of  Chia- 
pas and  Soconusco,  but  she  did  not  consent  to  the 
actual  tracing  of  the  limits,  insisting,  as  before,  upon 
the  maintenance  of  the  statu  quo,  as  may  be  seen  in 
Article  I  of  the  Memorandum  by  Mr.  Pavon:  "The 
limits  between  the  two  republics  shall  continue  to  be 
what  they  noiv  are^  This  phrase  clearly  expresses  the 
invariable  idea  of  Guatemala,  namely,  not  to  trace  her 
limits,  and  thus  leave  subsisting  all  the  causes  of  diffi- 
culties, and  all  the  elements  of  future  conflicts,  between 
the  two  nations.  Moreover,  the  deference  of  Guate- 
mala in  1854  had  for  its  basis  the  proposed  payment 
of  a  debt  which  Mexico  can  not  recognize,  and  a  claim 
upon  unoccupied  lands  which  can  not  even  be  dis- 
cussed, since  it  has  no  foundation  whatever.  It  is,  in 
fact,  difficult  to  discover  the  reasons  which  Guatemala 
has  had  for  refusing  the  settlement  of  her  limits,  for  it 
is  not  possible  even  to  imagine  that  this  refusal  in- 
volves the  idea  of  maintaining  the  rights   hitherto 


36 

alleged  and  the  hopes  hithei-to  cherished.  It  is,  there- 
fore, absolutely  indispensable  to  put  an  end  to  a  con- 
troversy which  has  caused  such  evils  to  both  countries, 
and  threatens  others  still  more  serious  for  the  future 
welfare  of  two  republics  needing  to  live  in  the  most 
perfect  harmony. 

Summing  up  all  the  argument  of  the  present  note,, 
the  following  points  have  been  proved : 

1.  Chiapas  was  a  province  on  terms  of  equality 
with  the  others  which  formed  the  captaincy-general  of 
Guatemala. 

2.  Chiapas,  on  the  3d  of  September,  1821,  spon- 
taneously separated  from  Guatemala  and  united  her- 
self to  Mexico. 

3.  Chiapas,  on  the  12th  of  September,  1824,  again 
united  herself  to  the  United  States  of  Mexico,  by  the 
free  vote  of  the  majority  of  her  inhabitants. 

4.  Soconusco,  in  1821,  was  a  partido  of  the  intend- 
ency  of  Chiapas,  and  as  such  united  herself  to  the 
Mexican  Empire. 

5.  Soconusco,  in  1824,  was  legitimately  represented 
in  the  Supreme  Junta  of  Chiapas,  and  freely  voted  for 
annexation  to  Mexico  on  the  3d  of  May. 

6.  The  act  signed  at  Tapachula,  on  the  24th  of 
July,  1824,  was  a  revolutionary  ^document,  and  was 
illegal  from  every  point  of  view. 

7.  Central  America  recognized  the  Supreme  Jun- 
ta of  Chiapas,  and  offered  to  respect  its  determina- 
tion. 

8.  The  decree  of  August  18,  1824,  by  which  the 
Federal  Congress  declared  that  Soconusco,  by  virtue 
of  her pronunciamiento,  had  united  with  Central  Amer- 
ica, was  a  usurpation  of  the  rights  of  Mexico. 

9.  The  notes   exchanged   between   the   Ministers 


37 

Alaman  and  Mayorga  did  not  constitute  a  legal  agree- 
ment. 

10.  The  decree  of  October  31,  1825,  by  modifying 
the  essence  of  the  propositions  of  the  Mexican  Minis- 
ter, left  them  without  effect. 

11.  The  neutrality  in  which  Soconusco  remained 
de  facto  was  many  times  violated  by  Guatemala. 

12.  No  act  of  Mexican  authorities  recognizing  such 
neutrality  could  be  valid,  since  any  treaty  required 
the  approbation  of  Congress. 

13.  Mexico  was  under  no  obligation  torespect  such 
neutrality.  Consequently,  when  she  occupied  Soco- 
nusco in  1842,  she  infringed  no  international  compact, 
and  only  made  use  of  the  right  given  her  by  the  vote 
of  May  3d,  and  the  declaration  of  September  12, 1824 

14.  Soconusco,  in  1842,  was  free  to  unite  herself 
again  to  Mexico ;  for;  even  supposing  legitimate  the 
act  of  July,  1824,  the  district  was  thereby  united 
to  Central  America,  not  to  Guatemala  ;  therefore, 
when  that  federation  was  dissolved,  Guatemala  had 
no  rights  of  any  kind. 

15.  The  military  pressure,  the  intrigues,  and  other 
abuses  which  Guatemala  has  imputed  to  Mexico  are 
not  proved,  while,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  proved  that 
in  September,  1824,  there  were  no  Mexican  troops  in 
Chiapas,  and  that  those  commanded  by  Colonel  Agua- 
yo  in  1842  were  invited  thither  by  the  inhabitants 
of  Soconusco. 

16.  Any  supposahle  irregularity  in  the  incorpora- 
tion of  Chiapas  and  of  Soconusco  has  been  entirely 
validated  hy  the  constant  union  of  those  regions  during 
fifty-one  years  in  the  first  case,  and  during  thirty-three 
yea/rs  in  the  second  case,  *  in  which  lapse  of  tinne  they 

*  Now,  in  1881,  theae  periods  are  respectively  57  and  39  years. 


210701 


38 

have  not  presented  a,  single  complaint  nor  indicated  any 
repugnance  to  continue  attached  to  the  Mexican  He- 
public. 

17.  Respecting  the  public  lands,  tlie  claim  of  Gua- 
temala is  entirely  inadmissible,  since  slie  has  no  rights 
whatever  upon  the  territory  of  Chiapas. 

18.  The  debt  of  Chiapas  is  included  in  that  of 
Mexico,  which  is  consequently  not  responsible  for  it 
to  Guatemala ;  from  whom  she  might,  on  the  contrary, 
more  properly  demand  a  certain  amount,  as  the  differ- 
ence between  that  debt  and  the  general  one  of  Ceili- 
tral  America. 

19.  The  delays  of  so  many  years  in  the  settlement 
of  this  question  are  due  to  Guatemala,  who  has  always 
opposed  the  tracing  of  limits,  which  has  continually 
been  urged  by  the  Government  of  Mexico. 

The  facts  being  thus  cleared  up,  and  the  right  of 
Mexico  to  Chiapas  and  Soconusco  being  solidly  estab- 
lished, I  proceed  to  treat  of  the  question  concerning 
the  adjustment  of  limits  between  the  frontier  states  of 
both  republics,  in  order  to  terminate,  in  a  practical 
manner,  this  prolonged  subject  of  controversy. 

I  renew  to  Your  Excellency  my  very  distinguished 
consideration. 

(Signed)  J.  M.  LAFRAGUA. 

To  His  Excellency  Mk.  Ramon   Ueiaete,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and 
Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the  Bepublic  of  Guatemala* 

*  This  dispatch  has  not  been  answered  by  Guatemala. 


DOCUMENT  No.  IV. 


SEAL  OF  THE  MEXICAN"  MINISTRY  OF  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS  : 

Section  of  America. 

Extract. 

The  Minister  of  War  has  transmitted  to  this  de- 
partment, in  a  dispatch  dated  the  5th  instant,  a  com- 
munication from  the  Governor  of  Chiapas  dated  the 
1st  of  October  last,  in  which  he  says  that  he  transmits 
a  copy,  containing  14  pages,  of  the  depositions  made 
by  the  criminals,  Samuel  Palmer  and  Florencio  Garcia, 
and  of  the  investigation  made  concerning  their  state- 
ment that  the  President  of  Guatemala  favors  the  fili- 
bustering projects  organized  in  that  republic  against 
Mexico. 

From  these  documents  it  appears  that  Palmer  and 
Garcia,  the  former  a  negro  from  Belize  and  the  latter 
a  Spaniard,  the  manager  of  the  coffee  plantation  of  Don 
Joaquin  Cdrdenas,  near  El  Rodeo,  Guatemala,  formed 
a  part  of  the  band  of  invaders  who  sacked  the  town 
of  Tuxtla  Chico  on  the  night  of  September  20,  1880, 
Garcia  having  acted  as  second  in  command.  In  their 
depositions  they  stated,  among  other  things,  that  the 
expedition  in  question  was  organized  and  armed  within 
the  territory  of  Guatemala,  with  the  knowledge  of  the 


40 

Commander  of  Malacatan,  Don  Joaquin  Velasco,  who 
promised  the  leader,  Faustino  Cardenas,  that  he  would 
offer  no  obstacle,  and  that  the  plan  had  for  object 
to  overthrow  the  existing  authorities  of  the  state  of 
Chiapas,  and  to  proclaim  Don  Pantaleon  Dominguez ; 
that  the  plan  as  well  as  the  proclamations  signed  by 
Victor  Fougier,  an  exile  in  that  republic,  were  printed 
in  Guatemala,  but  that  these  documents  were  thrown 
into  a  river  when  the  invaders  were  overtaken  by  the 
Mexican  troops  sent  in  pursuit.  Garcia  added  that 
they  also  carried  a  box  with  bombs,  though  he  did 
not  know  for  what  purpose. 

In  the  record  of  the  investigation  made  last  March 
by  the  Judge  of  First  Instance  at  Tapachula,  appear 
the  depositions  of  Dr.  Charles  E.  Mordaunt,  an  Ameri- 
can citizen ;  Jose  Maria  Chacon,  resident  at  Tapachula ; 
Timoteo  Leon,  a  Guatemalan  by  birth  but  Mexican 
by  naturalization ;  and  Juan  Maria  Coutino,  resident 
at  Tapachula. 

Mordaunt  testified  that  he  knows  from  the  state- 
ments of  several  exiles  and  of  some  Guatemalans  that 
the  President  of  that  republic  has  aided  and  con- 
tinues to  aid  the  revolutionists ;  that  having  seen  the 
invaders  of  Tuxtla  Chico  at  the  time  of  their  first  in- 
cursion, he  saw  them  again  in  the  town  of  El  Rodeo, 
Guatemala,  engaged  in  trade  with  a  capital  furnished 
them  by  the  President  of  Guatemala  according  to 
their  own  statement,  and  that  he  knows  by  the  evi- 
dence of  his  own  eyes  that,  on  the  two  occasions  when 
the  Department  of  Soconusco  was  invaded,  the  arms 
and  ammunition  employed  belonged  to  the  Guatema- 
lan army,  that  several  Guatemalans  accompanied  the 
Mexican  invaders,  all  of  whom,  on  their  return,  were 
not  molested  but  were  aided  by  the  said  President. 


41 

Chacon  testified  that  the  President  of  Guatemala, 
Don  Rufino  Barrios,  not  only  favors  the  filibusters  but 
furnishes  them  arms,  ammunition,  and  even  explo- 
sive projectiles.  This  he  knows  from  having  been 
in  December  of  last  year  at  Costa  Cuca,  Guate- 
mala, with  Basilio  Saenz,  of  Tapachula,  a  fugitive 
from  justice  for  crimes  not  political.  Saenz  informed 
him  that  President  Barrios  had  given  him  $400  in 
cash,  and  loaned  him  $3,000  for  two  years  without 
interest,  on  condition  that  he  would  head  a  party  of 
filibusters  who  should  take  possession  of  Soconusco, 
causing  to  be  signed  in  the  towns  petitions  in  favor 
of  annexation  to  Guatemala.  This  Chacon  believes 
to  be  true,  because  Barrios  himself  has  proposed  to 
give  the  witness  money  and  official  positions  with  the 
same  object  of  annexing  Soconusco  to  Guatemala; 
that  it  is  a  notorious  fact  that  President  Barrios  gives 
aid  and  comfort  to  all  discontented  Mexicans  who  ar- 
rive at  his  capital  for  political  reasons,  on  condition  of 
their  taking  up  arms  against  Mexico,  and  that  the 
week  before  last  two  small  parties  of  Guatemalan  sol- 
diers invaded  Mexican  territory  near  Cuatepec,  having 
penetrated  two  leagues  within  the  municipality  of 
Ayutla. 

Timoteo  Leon  testified  that  it  is  true  that  President 
Barrios  favors  the  filibusters  who  invade  Mexico,  which 
fact  he  knows  because  they  are  habitually  organized 
and  armed  in  Guatemalan  towns  in  the  presence  of 
the  authorities,  who  "do  nothing  to  impede  them,  al- 
though they  have  at  their  command  the  telegraph  by 
which  they  might  give  information. 

Lastly,  Coutifio  gives  a  similar  opinion,  based  upon 
the  fact  that  the  filibusters  themselves  have  publicly 
boasted  of  the  protection  given  them  by  President 


42 

Barrios,  and  that  Faustino  Cardenas,  the  leader  in  the 
sack  of  Tuxtla  Chico,  having  been  previously  under 
arrest  in  Guatemala,  was  set  at  liberty  in  order  to 
invade  Mexico,  and  that,  in  all  the  attacks  made  upon 
Tuxtla  Chico,  the  point  of  reunion  of  the  invaders  has 
been  at  San  Vicente  Canand,  vevj  near  the  headquar- 
ters of  the  Commander  of  Malacatan,  Don  Joaquin 
Velasco,  who  aided  them  with  money  and  arms,  all 
which  is  public  and  notorious  by  the  admission  of  the 
filibusters  themselves. 

This  document  concludes  with  a  dispatch  from  the 
judge,  in  which  he  excuses  himself  for  the  delay  in 
sending  the  record  of  his  investigation. 

(Signed)  FELIX  GALINDO, 

Chief  of  the  Section  of  America,. 

Mexico,  Noveniber  10,  1881. 


DOCUMENT  No.  V. 


A  Irief  summary  of  the  contents  of  a  hook  published  hy  Senor 
Don  Matias  Romero^  hearing  the  title  "  Refutation  of  the 
Charges  made  against  the  Citizen  Matias  Romero  hy  the 
Government  of  Guatemala^ 

Among  tlie  principal  complaints  made  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Guatemala  to  the  Government  of  Mexico, 
respecting  difficulties  on  the  frontier  of  Soconusco,  are 
those  referring  to  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Matias  Romero 
during  the  first  two  years  that  he  resided  on  that  fron- 
tier. These  complaints  were  embodied  in  three  notes, 
dated  April  9,  12,  and  14, 1875,  addressed  to  the  Mexi- 
can Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  by  the  Guatemalan 
representative  in  Mexico,  by  order  of  General  Jose 
E-ufino  Barrios,  President  of  Guatemala,  and  printed 
as  appendices  to  the  "Memoir  of  the  Mexican  Foreign 
Office,"  bearing  date  December  4,  1875.  Although 
the  references  made  by  the  Mexican  Minister  to  these 
complaints  in  the  memoir  in  question  were  perfectly 
conclusive  as  to  the  degree  of  importance  which  should 
be  attached  thereto,  Mr.  Romero  sought  and  obtained 
from  the  Foreign  Office,  under  dates  of  July  31  and 
August  2,  1876,  permission  for  the  publication  of  an 
extended  refutation  of  the  Guatemalan  charges,  as  an 
appendix  to  the  Foreign  Office  memoir  of  that  year. 


44 

This  document,  which  was  issued  from  the  govern- 
ment press,  consists  of  a  quarto  volume  of  three  hun- 
dred and  seventy-seven  pages,  of  which  one  hundred 
and  sixty-three  are  filled  with  Mr,  Romero's  refutation, 
and  the  remainder  with  eighty-three  documents  illus- 
trative of  the  text. 

This  volume  bears  the  title  "Refutation  of  the 
Charges  made  against  the  Citizen  Matias  Romero  by 
the  Government  of  Guatemala."  Mr.  Romero,  who  is 
well  known  in  the  United  States  as  the  efficient  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  of  Mexico  during  the  war  of  interven- 
tion in  that  republic,  was  subsequently  for  several  years 
Minister  of  Finances  under  Presidents  Juarez  and  Diaz, 
member  of  the  Federal  Congress,  and  Postmaster-Gen- 
eral, and  was  recently  instrumental  in  the  organization 
in  the  United  States  of  the  Mexican  Southern  Rail- 
way Company,  under  the  auspices  of  General  U  S. 
Grant,  who  accompanied  him  to  Mexico  in  the  spring 
of  1881. 

Mr.  Romero  begins  his  refutation  by  an  analysis  of 
the  charges  made  against  him,  which  he  divides  into 
seventeen  heads,  each  of  which  is  separately  consid- 
ered.    The  volume  is  divided  into  three  j^arts.     Part 

I  is  entitled  "  A  Statement  of  my  Conduct  in  Soconusco 
in  Respect  to  General  Barrios  and  Guatemala."     Part 

II  consists  of  a  "Reply  to  the  Charges  made  by  Gen- 
eral Barrios,"  and  Part  III  is  devoted  to  a  considera- 
tion of  the  conduct  of  General  Barrios  toward  Mexico, 
especially  in  reference  to  the  frontier  question. 

At  the  outset,  Mr.  Romero  cites  the  language  em- 
ployed by  the  Chief  Clerk  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Mr.  Juan 
de  Dios  Arias,  in  the  "  Memoir  of  Foreign  Affairs," 
bearing  date  December  4,  1875,  and  that  of  his  prede- 
cessor, the  lamented  statesman,  Mr.  Jose  Maria  Lafra- 


45 

gua,  in  four  notes  addressed  to  the  Guatemalan  minis- 
ter, Mr.  Uriarte,  under  dates  of  July  4  and  8  and 
August  11,  1875,  all  relating  to  the  said  charges. 
These  communications  explicitly  declare  that  such 
charges  are  unjust;  that  they  rest  upon  insufficient 
and  erroneous  data,  and  that  they  are  expressed  in 
terms  unsuited  to  diplomatic  correspondence.  The 
Government  of  Guatemala  was  therefore  formally  in- 
vited to  exhibit  proofs  of  the  said  charges,  which  in- 
vitation, it  is  needless  to  remark,  was  not  accepted. 

Mr.  Komero  then  narrates  at  length  the  circum- 
stances attending  his  settlement  in  Soconusco.  Hav- 
ing resigned  the  Mexican  Ministry  of  Finance  on  June 
10,  1872,  just  before  the  death  of  President  Juarez,  on 
account  of  seriously  impaired  health,  he  thought  it 
necessary  to  devote  himself  to  active  agricultural  la- 
bors. His  attention  had  been  previously  attracted  to 
the  Department  of  Soconusco,  whose  agricultural  re- 
sources and  capabilities  for  improvement  he  had  al- 
ready been  instrumental  in  promoting,  by  several  fis- 
cal measures  and  by  the  publication  of  a  memoir 
devoted  to  that  subject.  During  a  visit  which  Mr. 
Romero  made  to  Soconusco,  in  September  and  Octo- 
ber, 1872,  his  favorable  impressions  were  confirmed. 
He  then  made  the  acquaintance  of  General  Jose  Ru- 
fino  Barrios,  now  President  of  Guatemala,  making  him 
a  visit  in  Quezaltenango,  and  establishing  with  him 
relations  of  confidence,  and  even  intimacy.  General 
Barrios  was  highly  pleased  at  the  proposed  establish- 
ment of  Mr.  Romero  on  the  frontier  of  Soconusco, 
where  he  possessed,  in  Mexican  territory,  a  hacienda 
called  Malacate,  which  he  offered  for  sale.  General 
Barrios  accompanied  Mr.  Romero  on  his  return  to 
Tapachula,  the  capital  of  Soconusco,  where,  at  the  in- 


46 

stance  of  the  latter,  public  demonstrations  were  made 
in  his  honor.  At  the  request  of  General  Barrios,  Mr. 
Romero  wrote  a  series  of  comments  upon  the  Guate- 
malan project  of  a  constitution,  then  under  discussion. 

As  the  result  of  this  first  visit  to  Soconusco,  al- 
though his  resources  did  not  permit  the  purchase  of 
the  hacienda  of  Malacate,  he  resolved  to  establish 
himself  near  Tapachula,  giving  his  chief  attention  to 
the  cultivation  of  India-rubber.  He  arrived  there 
definitively  with  his  family  in  February,  1873,  and  in 
the  following  month  made  a  visit  to  the  capital  of 
Guatemala.  He  found  General  Barrios  provisionally 
in  charge  of  the  Presidency,  to  which  he  was  formally 
elected  two  months  later.  The  General  received  Mr. 
Romero  with  the  greatest  cordiality,  expressed  a 
desire  that  he  should  settle  within  the  territory  of 
Guatemala,  offered  him  the  necessary  resources  for  the 
purchase  of  lands,  and  expressed  a  desire  to  become 
his  partner  in  establishing  a  new  coffee  plantation 
on  Mexican  public  lands  adjacent  to  his  hacienda  of 
Malacate  and  to  the  Guatemalan  frontier.  The  latter 
proposal  alone  was  accepted  by  Mr.  Romero,  and  an 
unsigned  contract  was  drawn  up.  The  confidence  of 
General  Barrios  was  at  this  time  carried  to  the  ex- 
treme of  intrusting  Mr.  Romero  with  the  drawing  up 
of  a  decree  establishing  religious  liberty  in  Guatemala 
in  conformity  with  Mexican  antecedents,  and  with  the 
preparation  of  one  or  more  editorial  articles  in  defense 
of  the  provisional  government  of  Barrios. 

Returning  by  land  to  Soconusco,  Mr.  Romero  visited 
the  hacienda  of  Malacate  to  inspect  the  lands  proposed 
for  the  coffee  plantation,  and  then  devoted  himself 
to  the  formation  of'  his  own  India-rubber  plantation, 
called  the  Hular  de  Zuchiate,  on  lands  adjacent  to  the 


47 

sea.  In  August,  1873,  he  again  visited  Malacate  in 
company  with  a  government  surveyor,  and  effected 
the  denouncement  and  survey  of  a  tract  of  public 
lands  adequate  for  the  contemplated  coffee  plantation 
to  the  north  of  Malacate,  adjacent  to  the  reputed 
frontier  of  Guatemala,  but  taking  care  that  the  lands 
in  question  should  be  exclusively  on  Mexican  terri- 
tory. Contracts  were  made  with  laborers  resident  in 
the  vicinity  for  planting  corn  and  for  clearing  the 
land  destined  for  the  coffee  plantation,  to  which  the 
name  of  "  Cafetal  Juarez  "  was  given.  President  Ba- 
rrios was  duly  and  minutely  informed  by  letters  of  all 
the  steps  taken  in  pursuance  of  his  repeated  requests. 

In  January,  1874,  General  Barrios  visited  his  ha- 
cienda of  Malacate  and  inspected,  in  company  with 
Mr.  Romero,  the  lands  comprising  the  "  Cafetal  Juarez." 
He  then  expressed  the  fear  that  a  portion  of  those 
lands  belonged  to  Guatemala,  and  indicated  what  he 
eonceived  to  be  the  frontier  between  the  two  repub- 
lics in  terms  differing  from  what  had  been  assumed 
as  such  by  Mr.  Romero — namely,  the  course  of  the 
small  river  Petacalapa.  As  the  result  of  his  inspec- 
tion of  the  lands.  General  Barrios  withdrew  from  the 
proposed  partnership,  leaving  Mr.  Romero  free  to  form 
the  projected  coffee  plantation  on  his  own  account, 
under  promise  of  efficacious  co-operation  from  the 
Indian  laborers  resident  within  the  frontier  of  Guate- 
mala. 

During  this  visit  of  General  Barrios  to  Soconusco 
he  was  informed  that  three  Guatemalan  exiles,  resid- 
ing at  Tapachula,  had  formed  a  plot  to  assassinate  him. 
Through  the  intervention  of  Mr.  Romero,  those  indi- 
viduals were  arrested  and  kept  in  prison  for  some 
weeks.     They  were  afterward  liberated  by  the  local 


48 

judge,  against  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Romero,  on  the 
ground  of  insufficient  evidence.  This  circumstance 
highly  displeased  President  Barrios,  who  habitually 
considered  Mr.  Romero  responsible  for  everything  that 
passed  in  Soconusco. 

After  the  return  of  General  Barrios,  Mr.  Romero 
continued  his  labors  in  the  formation  of  the  coffee 
plantation  called  "  Cafetal  Juarez,"  counting  upon  the 
good-will  of  Barrios,  repeatedly  expressed  in  letters 
bearing  date  February  and  March,  1874.  Various 
reports  reached  the  ears  of  Mr.  Romero  that  Barrios 
had  stated  that  the  said  plantation  was  in  Guatemalan 
territory,  and  that  the  cultivation  should,  therefore, 
not  be  permitted ;  but  the  Guatemalan  president 
denied  in  his  letters  the  truth  of  these  reports.  On 
the  9th  of  May,  however,  the  alcaldes  of  the  Guate- 
malan town  of  Tajomulco  proceeded  to  the  "  Cafetal 
Juarez"  with  200  Indians,  and,  after  reading  an  order 
from  the  political  chief  of  San  Mdrcos,  Guatemala, 
cut  down  with  their  machetes  all  the  young  coffee-trees, 
and  carried  off  prisoners  to  Guatemala  the  two  men 
in  charge  of  the  plantation,  one  of  whom  was  kept 
four  days  in  the  public  prison  of  San  Mdrcos.  Mr. 
Romero  was  naturally  averse  to  believe  that  this  de- 
struction had  been  ordered  by  President  Barrios.  He 
immediately  informed  General  Barrios  by  letter  of  the 
outrage  committed  on  his  estate,  and  received  a  prompt 
reply  disavowing  the  act,  and  giving  assurance  that 
orders  had  been  sent  to  the  Indians  in  question  to 
abstain  from  further  molestations. 

The  mayordomo  of  Mr.  Romero,  named  Fermin 
Maldonado,  on  his  return  from  his  imprisonment  in 
San  Mdrcos,  received  information  that  a  party  of  the 
Indians  who  had  committed  the  former  outrage  had 


49 

again  assembled  in  a  hut  at  Altand,  within  Mexican 
territory.  Desirous  to  avenge  the  wrongs  he  had  suf- 
fered, he  collected  eight  or  nine  laborers  from  the 
coffee  plantation,  and  made  an  incursion  to  Altand. 
The  Indians  iied  at  his  approach,  and  he  proceeded  to 
burn  down  three  huts  and  carry  off  four  boxes  of 
corn.  He  also  caught  one  of  the  Indians  of  Guate- 
mala, whom  he  sent  prisoner  to  Tapachula,  informing 
Mr,  Romero  by  letter  of  what  he  had  done.  The  huts 
were  of  the  kind  that  may  readily  be  constructed  by 
three  or  four  men  in  a  single  day,  and  were  accord- 
ingly valued  at  a  dollar  apiece.  The  corn  was  esti- 
mated to  be  worth  eight  dollars.  The  total  valua- 
tion of  the  loss  was,  therefore,  eleven  or  twelve  dol- 
lars, but  the  event  figures  in  the  charges  made  by 
General  Barrios  as  the  burning  and  sack  of  a  Guate- 
malan town.  Mr.  Romero  was  ignorant  of  this  act  of 
his  mayordomo,  which  he  at  once  condemned  on  re- 
ceiving information  thereof.  He  wrote  to  the  politi- 
cal chief  of  San  Mdrcos  offering  to  pay  the  damage 
incurred,  and  subsequently  wrote  in  similar  terms  to 
President  Barrios,  disavowing  all  responsibility  for 
the  act  of  his  mayordomo. 

Meanwhile  ^the  Guatemalan  exiles  in  Tapachula, 
three  of  whom  had  already  been  arrested,  as  before 
mentioned,  for  an  alleged  conspiracy  against  the  life 
of  General  Barrios,  were  secretly  preparing  an  invasion 
of  Guatemala.  The  political  chief  of  Tapachula,  hav- 
ing received  information  of  the  fact,  consulted  Mr. 
Romero  as  to  what  should  be  done,  and,  by  his  advice, 
the  leaders  were  arrested  the  same  night.  As  there 
was  not,  however,  sufficient  legal  evi(]ence  to  justify 
their  continued  imprisonment,  Mr.  Romero  wrote  out 
a  legal  opinion  to  the  effect  that  the  President  of 
4 


50 

Mexico  should  be  solicited  to  expel  them  from  the 
republic   as   "  pernicious   foreigners."      This    opinion, 
doubtless,   displeased    General   Barrios,  who    desired 
more  efficacious  measures  to  be  taken.     An  order  was 
subsequently  obtained  from  the  governor  of  the  State 
of  Chiapas  for  sending  the  prisoners  to  the  state  capi- 
tal, but  Captain  Tellez,  in  command  of  a  company  of 
federal  troops  at  Tapachula,  refused  to  surrender  them. 
The  same  officer  co-operated  with  the  prisoners  respect- 
ino-  their  projected  invasion  of  Guatemala,  seizing  upon 
all  the  Guatemalan  Indians  in  the  vicinity  to  increase 
the  ranks  of  his  company.     On  the  27th  of  June  the 
prisoners  were  allowed  to  give  a  ball  in  the  house  of 
Tellez,   and,    having   intoxicated   the   federal   troops, 
they  were  next  morning  placed  under  the  orders  of 
the  Guatemalan  exiles,  nominally  prisoners,  for  a  fili- 
bustering expedition  against  Guatemala.    They  crossed 
the  frontier  the  same  day,  committing  various  outrages 
and  assassinations  by  the  way,  and  on  the  following 
day  were  completely  routed,  near   San   Marcos,  by 
Colonel  Lopez,  the  political  chief  of  that  place,  already 
mentioned.    Three  of  the  leaders  were  killed  in  action  ; 
four  others  were  taken  prisoners  and  were  executed  at 
San  Marcos  two  months  later.     An  attempt  was  sub- 
sequently made  by  General  Barrios  to  connect  Mr, 
Romero  with  this  incursion.     The  facts  were,  that  he 
had  used  all  his  influence  to  prevent  its  taking  place, 
having  even  had  an  interview  with  the  Guatemalan 
exiles  while  prisoners,  in  which  he  endeavored  to  dis- 
suade them  from  any  step  of  the  kind.     Moreover,  at 
the  moment  of  the  invasion,  Mr.  Romero  was  at  San 
Marcos,  Guatemala,  where  he   had    gone  to   see  the 
political  chief.  Colonel  Lopez,  respecting  the  destruc- 
tion of  his  coffee  plantation,  and  he  only  escaped  fall- 


51 

ing  into  the  Lands  of  the  filibusters  by  the  accident  of 
having  taken  a  difterent  road  on  his  return.  During 
this  visit  to  San  Md-rcos,  Colonel  Lopez  avowed  that 
the  destruction  of  the  "  Cafetal  Juarez"  had  been 
effected  pursuant  to  orders  of  President  Barrios,  but 
he  came  to  an  understanding,  apparently  amicable, 
with  Mr.  Romero,  as  to  the  future  conduct  to  be  ob- 
served by  both  parties. 

Since  Mr.  Romero  could  not  be  proved  to  be  di- 
rectly responsible  for  the  filibustering  expedition  in 
question.  General  Barrios  afterward  undertook  to  hold 
him  indirectly  responsible,  as  having  been  the  adviser 
of  the  sending  of  a  Mexican  federal  garrison  to  Tapa- 
chula.  It  is  true  that,  as  early  as  September,  1871, 
before  having  visited  Soconusco,  Mr.  Romero  suggest- 
ed, in  an  official  document,  the  sending  of  such  a  force, 
and  that,  during  the  early  part  of  his  residence  in 
Tapachula  (September,  1873),  he  repeated  the  sugges- 
tion. This  was,  perhaps,  the  cause  of  the  sending  of 
the  first  installment  of  federal  troops,  consisting  of  but 
sixty  men,  who  arrived  in  November,  1873.  Unfortu- 
nately, through  the  ignorance  and  inaptitude  of  their 
commander.  Captain  Tellez,  these  men  were,  for  the 
most  part,  seduced  into  the  filibustering  expedition 
against  Guatemala,  as  above  mentioned.  The  plan  of 
sending  such  a  force  had,  however,  been  warmly  ap- 
proved by  General  Barrios  in  letters  to  Mr.  Romero. 
After  the  events  above  referred  to,  Mr.  Romero  solicit- 
ed the  sending  of  a  more  numerous  federal  force,  under 
an  officer  of  greater  intelligence  and  confidence.  In 
fact,  a  small  battalion  of  federal  infantry  was  sent 
from  Acapulco,  under  the  orders  of  Lieutenant-Colonel 
Antonio  Ponce  de  Leon,  and  arrived  in  Tapachula 
early  in  September,  1874.     That  officer  had  instrue- 


52 

tions  to  repel  any  invasion  of  Mexican  territory  by 
Guatemalans — instructions,  doubtless,  due  in  part  to 
the  destruction  of  Mr.  Romero's  plantation,  whicli  had 
created  considerable  interest  in  Mexico,  and  had  been 
the  subject  of  two  official  investigations.  Colonel 
Ponce  de  Leon  naturally  wished  to  become  acquainted 
with  the  line  generally  considered  as  the  actual  fron- 
tier with  Guatemala,  and  invited  Mr.  Komero  to  ac- 
company him.  With  an  escort  of  ten  soldiers  they 
visited,  in  November,  1874,  the  "  Cafetal  Juarez,"  and 
adjacent  localities,  taking  care  not  to  pass  the  reputed 
frontier  of  Guatemala.  Nevertheless,  this  reconnais- 
sance gave  great  alarm  to  the  frontier  authorities  of 
Guatemala,  and  was  magnified  by  General  Barrios  into 
an  outrage  against  that  re2:>ublic. 

Previous  to  this  event,  and  immediately  after  his 
return  from  San  Marcos,  in  July,  1874,  Mr.  Romero, 
in  fulfillment  of  a  promise  made  to  Colonel  Lopez, 
addressed  communications  to  the  municipalities  of 
Tajomulco  and  Sibinal,  the  authorities  of  which  had 
participated  in  the  destruction  of  his  property.  In 
these  documents  he  gave  his  reasons  for  considering 
the  lands  in  question  to  be  Mexican  territory,  and, 
without  entering  further  upon  subjects  of  controversy, 
offered  to  pay  the  damages  caused  by  the  reprisals 
made  by  Maldonado  at  Altan^.  These  documents 
were  sent  by  the  municipalities  to  Colonel  Lopez,  at 
San  Mdrcos,  and  by  him  to  General  Barrios.  They 
elicited  an  angry  reply  from  Colonel  Lopez,  in  which 
the  tenor  of  these  documents  was  treated  as  an  offense 
of  sedition  against  Guatemala,  which  should  be  dealt 
with  by  the  courts,  and  it  was  insinuated  that  Mr. 
Romero  was  an  accomplice  of  the  recent  filibustering 
expedition. 


53 

Meanwhile,  Mr.  Romero  had  resolved  to  desist 
from  tlie  purchase  of  the  lands  forming  the  coffee  plan- 
tation, but  his  agent  in  Mexico  had  already  made  pay- 
ment of  the  price  to  the  government,  and  an  official 
title  had  been  issued  to  him  in  August,  1874,  by  which 
the  Mexican  Government  became  the  guarantee  that 
the  lands  were  really  Mexican  territory..  The  posses. 
sion  of  this  document  gave  him  an  unquestionable 
right  to  Mexican  protection,  but  he  nevertheless  re- 
solved not  to  solicit  such  intervention,  and  to  leave 
the  territorial  question  to  be  decided  by  a  treaty  of 
limits.  Consequently,  he  did  not  make  any  demand 
for  diplomatic  redress,  nor  even  address  any  complaint 
on  the  subject  to  the  Mexican  newspaj)ers.  From 
other  sources,  however,  those  papers  received  informa- 
tion on  the  subject,  and  the  members  of  Congress  from 
Chiapas  spontaneously  addressed  a  joint  complaint  on 
the  subject  to  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs.  These 
publications  and  the  complaint  in  question  were  wrong- 
ly attributed  by  President  Barrios  to  direct  efforts  on 
the  part  of  Mr.  Romero,  and  caused  great  indignation 
on  his  part.  In  revenge,  he  caused  to  be  written  a 
letter  from  Guatemala  to  the  Mexican  journal  the 
"  Monitor,"  in  which  the  destruction  of  the  coffee  plan- 
tation was  described  as  a  very  small  affair,  and  Mr. 
Romero  was  represented  as  a  heartless  speculator  in 
international  dissensions.  In  reply  to  this  letter  Mr. 
Romero,  for  the  first  time,  addressed  to  the  "  Monitor" 
his  own  version  of  the  facts,  taking  care,  however,  not 
to  inculpate  General  Barrios,  to  whom  he  sent  a  copy 
At  the,  same  time,  he  complained  to  General  Barrios 
by  letter,  of  the  attacks  made  upon  him  in  the  press 
and  received  a  reply  in  which  the  President  of  Guate 
mala  explicitly  denied  all  knowledge  thereof,  and  ex 


54 

pressed  bis  full  confidence  and  esteem,  as  was  his 
custom.  Until  February,  1875,  General  Barrios,  in  his 
frequent  letters  upon  business  affairs,  continued  to 
write  in  similar  terms,  so  that  Mr.  Romero  was  tem- 
porarily satisfied  of  the  loyalty  of  his  friendship. 

At  the  close  of  1874  the  Indians  of  Tacand,  Gua- 
temala, destroyed  the  boundary-post  of  Pinabete,  and 
erected  another  at  Cuilco  Viejo,  eight  leagues  to  the 
south.  By  order  of  Colonel  Ponce  de  Leon  it  was 
replaced  in  February,  1875,  the  new  one  being  de- 
stroyed. A  few  days  later  the  Indians  again  destroyed 
the  boundary-post.  It  was  a  second  time  replaced  in 
March,  and  was  soon  afterward  destroyed  a  third  time- 
Although  Mr.  Romero  had  no  share  in  the  acts  of  the 
federal  commander,  and  was  absent  from  Tapachula  at 
the  time  of  the  second  expedition  to  replace  the  boun- 
dary-post, he  was  held  responsible  in  Guatemala  for 
all  that  had  occurred,  and  even  charged  with  having 
intoxicated  Colonel  Ponce  de  Leon,  in  order  to  per- 
suade him  to  violate  the  territory  of  Guatemala.  In 
point  of  fact  Mr.  Romero  declined  a  written  invitation 
from  the  said  colonel  to  accompany  him  on  the  expe- 
dition in  question,  and  gave  an  opinion  against  the 
proposed  replacement  of  the  boundary-post. 

In  February,  1875,  there  was  established  at  Ta- 
pachula, by  the  efforts  of  Mr.  Romero,  a  printing 
press,  from  which  was  issued  under  his  direction  a 
small  weekly  journal,  the  "  Soconuscense,"  of  which 
only  twenty  numbers  were  issued.  No  attack  upon 
Guatemala  or  upon  President  Barrios  ever  appeared 
in  its  columns,  where  the  boundary  troubles  were 
spoken  of  with  extreme  moderation.  Nevertheless,  the 
official  journal  of  Guatemala  subsequently  accused  Mr. 
Romero  of  having  published  therein  a  multitude  of 


lies  and  calumnies  intended  to  promote  a  rupture  be- 
tween Mexico  and  Guatemala.  Mr.  Komero's  contri- 
butions to  that  paper  were  few,  and  were  signed  by 
his  name. 

In  January,  1875,  Mr.  Romero  learned  that  ten 
Guatemalan  Indians,  who  had  been  working  on  his 
coffee  plantation,  had  been  carried  off  prisoners  by  the 
authorities  of  the  neighboring  Guatemalan  village  of 
Toquian,  for  the  crime  of  having  dared  to  work  there 
against  their  orders.  Mr.  Romero  at  once  started  for 
the  plantation,  and  on  the  following  day  Colonel  Ponce 
de  Leon,  hearing  of  the  case,  set  out  for  that  planta- 
tion with  eighty  men  of  the  federal  troops.  Mr.  Ro- 
mero met  him  on  his  return  two  days  later,  and  per- 
suaded him  to  turn  back  without  having  reached  the 
frontier.  Nevertheless,  this  incident  was  represented 
by  order  of  General  Barrios  as  a  new  outrage  com- 
mitted upon  Guatemalan  territory. 

In  April,  1875,  Mr.  Romero  left  Tapachula  for 
Mexico,  to  take  his  seat  in  Congress  as  deputy  for 
Soconusco.  Soon  after  his  arrival  he  learned  that  the 
Guatemalan  Minister,  Don  Ramon  Uriarte,  had  ad- 
dressed to  the  Foreign  Office  three  communications,  by 
order  of  President  Barrios,  accusing  him  of  being  an 
incendiary,  a  plunderer,  a  filibuster,  etc.  As  the  facts 
upon  which  these  charges  are  based  have  all  been  pre- 
sented in  the  preceding  narrative  of  Mr.  Romero's  resi- 
dence in  Soconusco,  it  is  unnecessary  to  consider  these 
charges  in  detail,  as  Mr.  Romero  does  in  the  Second 
Part  of  his  Refutation. 

In  the  Third  Part  of  that  document,  Mr.  Romero, 
turning  the  tables  upon  his  accuser,  produces  formi- 
dable evidence  to  show  the  despotic  and  unprincipled 
character  of  the  ruler  of  Guatemala,  his  cruelty  toward 


56 

the  laboring  classes  of  Guatemala,  the  utter  lack  of 
guarantees  on  the  part  of  the  unfortunate  residents  of 
that  republic,  the  duplicity  of  General  Barrios  as  a 
part  of  his  methods  of  government,  his  unbounded 
ambition,  and  especially  his  fixed  design,  long  since 
formed,  of  disputing  the  Mexican  title  to  Soconusco 
and  Chiapas.  In  this  publication,  bearing  date  in 
1876,  is  correctly  predicted  and  outlined  (pages 
158-161)  the  hostile  conduct  recently  observed  by 
Guatemala  toward  Mexico  in  regard  to  the  question 
of  limits.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  the  recent  at- 
tempt on  the  part  of  Guatemala  to  obtain  the  inter- 
vention of  the  United  States  should  have  been  indi- 
cated five  years  ago  in  this  document,  which  must  be 
well  known  to  General  Barrios,  though  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  is  hitherto  probably  quite 
ignorant  of  its  existence.     Says  Mr,  Komero : 

"  It  (the  Government  of  Guatemala)  has  gone  so 
far  as  to  imagine  that,  in  case  of  a  war,  Guatemala 
might  celebrate  a  treaty  of  alliance  with  the  United 
States,  with  the  object  of  carrying  on  a  joint  war 
against  Mexico  and  dividing  between  them  the  spoils. 
It  would  not  be  strange,  much  less  impossible,  that, 
under  certain  circumstances,  which  are  fortunately  not 
probable  at  this  time,  the  United  States  might  wage 
against  Mexico  another  war  as  unjustifiable  and  as 
disastrous  as  that  of  Texas ;  but  whoever  knows  the 
position  occupied  in  the  world  by  the  United  States, 
the  essential  difi*erence  between  the  policy  of  their 
Government  and  that  of  Guatemala,  the  national  pride 
of  their  people,  and  various  other  circumstances,  which 
I  consider  it  unnecessary  to  enumerate,  will  come  to 
the  conclusion  that,  if  imfortunately  the  United  States 
ever  declare  war  upon  Mexico,  they  will  do  it  for  mo- 


57 

tives  of  their  own  and  not  for  those  of  any  other 
nation  :  in  their  own  name  and  not  as  allies  of  Guate- 
mala. It  is  really  the  height  of  blindness  to  imagine 
that  Guatemala,  by  stimulating  the  greed  of  the 
United  States,  could  drag  them  so  low  as  to  convert 
them  into  an  apj3endix  to  herself! " 

Yet  this  apparently  is  what  the  Government  of 
Guatemala  attempted  to  do  in  the  summer  of  1881, 
from  which  attempt  she  did  not  desist,  even  upon  the 
advent  of  the  administration  of  President  Arthur. 


PRINCIPAL  EVENTS 'AFFECTING  THE  RELATIOxNS 
BETWEEN  MEXICO  AND  GUATEMALA. 


1821.  February  24tli. — Plan  of  Iguala,  by  which  General  Iturbide 

proclaimed  the  independence  of  Mexico. 
1821.  September  3d. — Adhesion  of  Chiapas  to  the  plan  of  Iguala, 

and  proclamation  of  annexation  to  Mexico. 
1821.  September  8th. — Oath  of  independence  from  Spain  taken  by 

authorities  of  Chiapas. 
1821.  September  15th. — Guatemala  declares  her  independence  from 

Spain. 
1821.  September   26th. — Chiapas  declares  her  absolute  separation 

from  Guatemala. 
1821.  September  27th. — Entry  of  Iturbide  into  the  city  of  Mexico, 

and  formation  of  a  provisional  government. 
1821.  October  2 2d. — Chiapas  demands  of  Mexico  the  recognition  of 

her  separation  from  Guatemala. 

1821.  November  12th. — The  Government  of  Mexico  accepts  the  an- 

nexation of  Chiapas. 

1822.  January  5th. — Guatemala  signs  an  act  of  union  with  Mexico. 
1822.  January  15th. — The  regency  of  Mexico  proclaims  the  perpetual 

incorporation  of  Chiapas  into  the  Mexican  Empire. 

1822.  February  4th. — Formal  incorporation  of  Guatemala  into  the 

Mexican  Empire. 

1823.  Guatemala  separates  from  Mexico. 

1824.  May   3d. — Soconusco,  lawfully  represented    in   the   Supreme 

Junta  of  Chiapas,  voted  freely  for  her  annexation  to  Mexico. 
1824.  May  26th. — The  congress  of  Mexico  issues  an  act  declaring 
the  liberty  of  Chiapas  to  annex  herself  either  to  Mexico  or 
Guatemala. 


59 

1824.  September  12th. — Chiapas,  by  the  free  vote  of  the  majority 
of  its  inhabitants,  solemnly  ratified  its  final  incorporation 
to  Mexico,  and  in  the  first  Mexican  constitution  was  named 
as  part  and  parcel  of  the  latter  republic. 

1824.  September  12th. — Solemn  declaration  that  Soconusco  was  in- 

cluded in  the  province  of  Chiapas,  and  united  with  it  to 
Mexico. 

1825.  January  25th. — Guatemala  proposes  with  its  troops  to  occupy 

Tapachula  (Soconusco). 
1832.  Guatemala  violates  with  her  troops  the  territory  of  Soconusco. 
1832.  The  Mexican  Government  sends  to  Guatemala  a  minister  to 

settle  the  question  of  boundaries,  but  without  eSect. 

1839.  Guatemala  manifests  the  intention  to  include   Soconusco  in 

one  of  her  states. 

1840.  The  Alcalde  of  Tapachula  (Soconusco)  asks  protection  from 

Mexico  against  Guatemala. 

1842.  Mexico  occupies  Soconusco  with  its  troops,  in  virtue  of  the 
solicitations  of  its  inhabitants,  of  the  free  vote  cast  on  the 
3d  of  May,  1824,  and  the  declaration  of  the  12th  of  Sep- 
tember of  the  same  year. 

1842.  The  Guatemalan  Government,  through  the  British  consul  in 
Guatemala,  applies  to  the  English  Government  for  media- 
tion. 

1842.  October  10th. — The  English  minister  in  Mexico,  without  in- 
structions from  his  government,  inquires  of  the  Mexican 
Government  whether  English  mediation  would  be  favorably 
received,  and  the  Government  of  Mexico  answers  that  there 
is  no  need  therefor,  as  Soconusco  is  clearly  a  part  of  the 
Mexican  possessions. 

1853.  The  Mexican  Government  sends  another  minister  to  Guatemala 

for  the  settlement  of  the  question  of  limits,  but  without 
success,  in  consequence  of  the  opposition  of  Guatemala. 

1854.  The   Guatemalan  Government  manifests  a  disposition   to  re- 

nounce its  alleged  rights  to  Chiapas  and  Soconusco,  but  on 
condition  that  Mexico  should  recognize  in  its  favor  the  debt 
of  that  province;  which  Mexico  declined  to  do  in  1875, 
alleging  that  the  debt,  if  any,  should  be  recognized  in  favor 
of  private  creditors  and  not  of  the  Guatemalan  nation. 
1873.  October  20th. — The  Mexican  Government  declares  that  it  can 
not  enter  into  any  discussion  on  its  right  to  Chiapas  and 
Soconusco. 


60 

1874.  May  7th. — Guatemalan  Indians  destroy  Mr.  Matias  Romero's 

cofEee  plantation,  situated  in  Mexican  territory. 

1875.  February. — Residents   of  Guatemala   destroy   the   boundary- 

mark  called  "  Pinabete,"  and  build  another  near  Cuilco 
Vie  jo. 

1877.  September  7th. — A  convention  is  concluded  in  Mexico  creating 

a  joint  commission  of  Mexican  and  Guatemalan  engineers, 
in  order  to  study  the  dividing  line  of  the  two  countries  on 
the  eastern  limit  of  Soconusco  and  Chiapas,  with  which 
Guatemala  implicitly  recognized  that  the  rights  of  Mexico 
to  the  state  of  Chiapas  were  out  of  question. 

1878.  October. — A  band,  headed  by  Margarito  Barrios,  a  Guatemalan 

officer,  invade?  the  Mexican  territory  at  the  point  called 
"  Tonintana." 

1879.  December  l7th. — Thirty -five  filibusters  coming  from  Guate- 

mala attack  the  Mexican  village  Tuxtla  Chico. 

1880.  September. — Another  band,  consisting  of  forty  filibusters  from 

Guatemala,  surprise  again  Tuxtla  Chico. 

1880.  December. — The  political  chief  of  San  Marcos  (a  department 

of  Guatemala),  at  the  head  of  two  hundred  men,  invades 
Mexico,  destroys  the  Pinabete  boundary-mark,  erects  an- 
other one  several  leagues  within  Mexican  territory,  and 
hoists  thereon  the  Guatemalan  flag. 

1881.  June  16th. — The  Secretary  of  State  addresses  a  note  to  the 

American  minister  in  Mexico,  saying  that  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  at  the  request  of  Guatemala,  offers 
its  mediation  on  the  question  of  limits. 

1881,  July  9th. — Conference  of  the  American  minister  in  Mexico 
with  the  Mexican  Secretary  of  State  on  the  proposed  medi- 
ation of  the  United  States. 

1881.  July  25th. — Memorandum  by  Mr.  Mariscal  on  said  conference. 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


UNIVERSITY  of  CALIFORNIA 

AT 

LOS  ANGELES 
LIBRARY 


'•'^iiliAlNiiiWi^ ' 


''/ic 


-^^UjllV.. 


<: 


.^WE-UNIVER 


^il]0NV-SOP 


<,^^T.•lfRRARY^^^        .^^^^.IJBRARY^^^  ^^Mf-UMIVFRS"/^         ,-,\-lOS-AflCnfJV., 


%u>im\^     "^omwi^ 


^    <-» 


.■<  V 


•% 


%J13AINn-3WV' 


^^lUBRARYQ 

C_3 


OFCAllFO/P/i 


^ 


•  iC.tlDDADV/i. 


I> 


1-75 


t)l 


^$ 


N'lTlWV  ■ 


rAiiPiiD,, 


ur.iivi\,'CD; 


■^ 


JiVJJU-^ 
^OfCAt!r{)% 

I     ^ 


^,OFCALIF0%, 


i? 


vc 


Zil  is 


>'<5AiivyaiiiN^'^ 


b^  -<>. 


^\Wf-UNlV  yANCflfj> 


s^tiiBRARYQ 


%0JI1V3-J 


^   N 


^^•AavaaiHv 


\\^EUNIVERJ-/^       ^NlOSANCflfj-^ 


.'^tllBRARYQ^^        ^>^tllBRARYQ^ 


v^EUNIVER: 


University  ot  California.  Los  Anqeles 


L  006  621   888  4 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    001  161  620    8 


t.sf 


:"! 


